From Local Watershed Management to Integrated River Basin Management at National and Transboundary Levels from Local Watershed Management to Integrated River Basin Management at National and Transboundary Levels Adb I N T E R N a T I O N a L Water Management I N S T I T U T E Mekong River Commission

The opinions and interpretati ons expressed within are those of the authors. The designati on employed and the presen-tati on of material in this publicati on do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Mekong River Commission concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area, or of its authoriti es, or concerning the delimitati on of its fronti ers or boundaries. (2011). From local watershed management to integrated river basin management at nati onal and transboundary levels. Mekong River Commission, Lao PDR. 3. GOVERNANCE 3.1 Introducti on 3.2 Regulatory frameworks and insti tuti ons: the skeleton of governance 3.3 Everything is connected: the need for horizontal and verti cal integrati on 3.4 Parti cipati on: " Enlarging the We " 3.5 The importance of transparency, accountability, recourse and compensati on Box 1. The importance of both bott om-up and top-down – the Australian Landcare experience Box 2. Myths associated with land cover Box 3. River basin and watershed management – the Nam Ngum River Basin Development Project Box 4. Planning for hydropower development on the Lancang River (Upper Mekong) Box 5. Micro watershed development in the Utt arakhand, Himalayas Box 6. Governance through cross-sectoral dialogue and coordinati on – the Nam Ngum River Basin Committ ee Box 7. Linking watershed management to IWRM – the case of the 4-Ps, Cambodia Box 8. 2 3 F r o m L o c a l W a t e r s h e d M a n a g e m e n t t o I n t e g r a t e d R i v e r B a s i n M a n a g e m e n t P r e f a c e Preface The vision for the Mekong River Basin, as defined by the four Lower Mekong Basin (LMB) countries (Cambodia, Lao PDR, Thailand and Viet Nam), is an economically prosperous, socially just and environmentally sound Mekong River Basin. This vision is further emphasised in the mission of the Mekong River Commission (MRC), which is to promote and coordinate sustainable management and development of water and related resources for its Member Countries' mutual benefit and the people's well-being. To achieve this, MRC's core function is transboundary river basin management, taking account of basin-wide and transboundary issues. It was realised early on, however, …


Introduction
Watersheds face a range of degradati on challenges associated with human acti viti es, such as polluti on, deforestati on and changes in sediment generati on.The way they are managed has a profound cascading eff ect on natural resources and communiti es in the wider basin.Although watersheds play a criti cal role as the basic hydrological unit within a river basin they are oft en neglected in river basin management.
Over the past decade, principles and practi ces have evolved to ensure that integrated water resources management (IWRM) approaches used at the broader basin level to address sustainable development and management of land and water resources also apply at the smaller watershed level.This technical report is a synthesis of the knowledge, lessons learned and good practi ces presented and discussed at the Internati onal Conference on Watershed Management held in Chiang Mai, Thailand 9-11 March 2011.

Managing watersheds and river basins
The IWRM approach works best when it manages to take the diff erent 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 bott om-up management approaches are needed and that insti tuti onal arrangements must provide for linkages between the local and the national or regional levels.Local communities are often the most aff ected by management decisions at higher scales and their parti cipati on in watershed management planning is essenti al.However, planning and management authoriti es at the basin level need to balance local community needs with those of the wider society and environment.Integrati on can be improved by the establishment of networks and communiti es of practi ce across all scales, disciplines, basins and countries, and new informati on sharing technologies should be used to share informati on at all levels.
The key to eff ecti ve 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 regime and water quality downstream varies with the type of land use, watershed size, climate, soil characteristi cs, topography and geology.Finding a way to incorporate the many diverse factors that infl uence the functi onality and services provided by watersheds, such as economic development, populati on growth, land use change and climate change, requires integrati on across scales, sectors and communiti es -something that has so far eluded natural resource planners.While there are examples of successful small-scale local management eff orts, these need more than local-level scaling-up policies if they are to restore and improve watershed goods and services.
Water economies in developing countries are largely informal with litt le contact between users and public insti tuti ons.To refl ect this, reform eff orts need to use indirect and incenti ve based approaches.Replicati ng models from developed economies is not the solution.The long-term success and sustainability of watershed and river basin management initatives depends on securing ongoing funding and this has often been a problem.Exchange of knowledge and experience among countries that share a river basin can help to develop common policy frameworks and ensure longterm commitment and steady funding.

The Mekong context
The Mekong River system faces several major environmental challenges over coming decades.Planned hydropower developments, expansion of irrigati on and waterway transport, together with the impacts of climate change, will have major implicati ons for the environment and the livelihoods of basin communiti es.
The LMB countries' commitment to IWRM has seen large changes in water resources management over the past fi ve years including progressive establishment of river basin organisati ons.Watershed management has a longer history in the region and over the past decade the interacti ons between the ecological and the social and economic functi ons within a watershed have become bett er understood.It is now accepted policy in all LMB countries that watershed as well as river basin management must consider all three dimensions.

Good practice in watershed and river basin management
Success in managing competi ng interests in land and water resources relies on an understanding of the complexity of these systems, which today in the Mekong region clearly is not adequate.The functi onality of watersheds to provide essential goods and services continues to decline.Balancing development while maintaining ecosystem integrity requires a concerted planning eff ort that is inclusive and transparent.An integrated management approach that guides overall planning from the watershed to the basin level recognises the importance of multi -stakeholder negoti ati ons as a means of combining top-down policy implementati on and bott om-up parti cipatory processes.
Good data is needed to inform watershed and river basin planning and decision makers need to see that this informati on is both meaningful and credible.There is a clear need to integrate climate change adaptati on and miti gati on and disaster risk reducti on into the agenda of water and land management at all levels.Sound water accounti ng systems to assess impacts of interventi ons at diff erent scales are an essenti al fi rst step in the overall management of water resources.
The degree of up-scaling of sustainable watershed management in the Mekong region is extremely low.There is no 'one size fi ts all' approach to watershed and river basin management due to the diversity of issues that are unique to each situati on.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 acti on but implementi ng these approaches is not easy.

Governance in watershed and river basin management
The degree of up-scaling of sustainable watershed management in the Mekong region is extremely low.The bio-physical, socio-cultural and historical diversity of the region calls for locally and nati onally appropriate governance soluti ons to address its land and water challenges.Governance must be both top-down and bott om-up and watershed governance must be embedded into river basin management.Bett er governance is about including all those who should have a say, either because of their offi cial positi on or because they benefi t or suff er from the consequences of decisions made.
Over the past decade, all Mekong countries have passed formal water, fi sheries, land-use and related laws and created organisati ons to address watershed and river basin management issues.An important outcome of these reforms is a diverse range of local management bodies based at watershed and river basin levels.However, development of nati onal river basin organisati ons is sti ll at an early stage in the region.

Economics and fi nancing
Economic forces and conditi ons underlie many of the acti viti es that impact on watersheds and river basins.Pressing, and oft en competi ng, economic demands lead to watershed degradati on and signifi cant costs and losses have oft en been incurred, especially for poorer and more vulnerable groups.
The search for adequate funding to undertake integrated watershed and river basin management is a core concern among government agencies across the Mekong Basin.A variety of economic and fi nancial approaches for integrated watershed and river basin management are already being applied here, including novel ways of analysing economic costs and benefi ts in decision making, introducti on of new prices and markets for watershed goods and services and the development of innovati ve fi nancing mechanisms.
Decision makers tend to undervalue both the benefi ts of more sustainable water management and the costs of watershed degradati on and loss.In the Mekong Basin, for example, forests and wetlands generate ecosystem services worth billions of dollars a year.These types of benefi ts are rarely factored into offi cial economic stati sti cs, meaning that decisions about the best way to develop the watersheds of the Mekong Basin have oft en been made on the basis of only parti al informati on.Over the past decade, however, there has been a progressive shift in the way that watershed values have been calculated and presented to decision makers.The concept of total economic value has become one of the most widely used frameworks for identi fying and categorising watershed benefi ts.

. B A C K G R O U N D
The starti ng point for watershed management is recognising that watersheds are the fundamental hydrological unit and thus the basic land unit within a river basin, where biodiversity and ecosystem functi ons can be sustained and where livelihood opportuniti es are provided.A watershed is a naturally delineated unit of land that drains water, sediment, dissolved materials, heat, and biota to a common outlet along a stream channel.
Watersheds face a range of degradati on challenges associated with human acti viti es and the way in which they are managed has a profound cascading eff ect on natural resources and communiti es in the wider basin.
The geographic connecti on of watersheds as part of an overall river basin is important when considering policies, principles and strategies for the watershed as well as river basins.Over past decades, principles and practi ces have evolved to ensure that IWRM approaches used at the broader basin level also apply at the smaller watershed level.
In the Mekong Basin, even though IWRM is commonly known and practi sed, litt le att enti on has been paid to

Introduction
watershed terminology and the importance of watersheds in river basin management.In order to raise awareness about the importance of integrated watershed management as well as sharing experience and learning from water experts and practi ti oners in and outside the region, MRC and partners joined together to convene an 'Internati onal Conference on Watershed Management: From Local Watershed Management to Integrated River Basin Management at Nati onal and Transboundary Levels' which was held from 9-11 March 2011 in Chiang Mai, Thailand.
The following topics were chosen as guiding themes for the conference: • Good practi ces -the starti ng point in a process of watershed and river basin management, focusing on the drivers and challenges of sustainable watershed management with the objecti ve of fi nding soluti ons; and deliberati ng the consequences of climate change on watershed management, with a focus on no/low regret adaptati on strategies.
• Governance -focusing on key governance problems facing the Mekong Basin aiming at: a) improved understanding of the importance of watershed governance  • Economics and fi nancing -investi gati ng how fi nancial and economic decision-support information and enabling conditi ons lend vital support to the management acti ons, policies and governance arrangements required for integrated watershed and river basin management in the Mekong Basin; sharing practical experiences, lessons learned and providing recommendations about how fi nancial and economic approaches and tools can be used to promote more integrated, sustainable and equitable approaches to watershed and river basin management in the Mekong Basin.
A range of local, nati onal and internati onal stakeholders from diff erent sectors, government and non-government organisati ons and academia were represented among the more than 250 parti cipants.
This technical report brings together the technical and practical aspects of the state-of-the-art knowledge, lessons learned and good practi ces presented, debated and discussed during the conference as well as presenti ng suggested soluti ons for improved watershed and river basin management in relati on to the key topics.It is intended as a resource for anyone interested in the current debates, practi cal applicati ons and soluti ons for watershed and river basin management at diff erent scales.

Integrated water resources management
The Global Water Partnership (GWP) defines IWRM as a "process which promotes the coordinated development and management of water, land and related resources in order to maximise the resultant economic and social welfare in an equitable manner without compromising the sustainability of vital ecosystems" (GWP 2000).While this definition has a sound theoretical basis, practical implementation of the ideal IWRM scenario presents many challenges, such as: how to think at the basin level and act locally, and what is needed to ensure that water resources management is mainstreamed in economies?IWRM is enshrined in law in many countries but how can rhetoric be turned into good practice?
IWRM is a process that is implemented at all scales, from the watershed through to the basin (Figure 2).The following hierarchy of geographical units is used throughout this technical report: watershed, sub-basin, tributary basin, national and transboundary basin.At all these levels, the IWRM approach is used to address sustainable development and management of land and water resources, striving for a climate of openness and transparency.It is being implemented through a com-

Integrated watershed management
IWRM -vertical and horizontal coordination -bination of integrated watershed management and integrated river basin management, ensuring appropriate dialogue across sectors and amongst concerned stakeholders.It is particularly successful, when it manages to take the different scales of the river basin into account, making watershed management a key part of river basin management.However, to adequately address the additional challenges that exist at the larger basin scale, managers need to do more than simply expand watershed governance mechanisms.Cross-sector and cross-scale information and dialogue are essential for improving coordination and helping position watershed management as an integral part of river basin management.

Defining the issues
Changes in sediment generation and vegetation cover, pollution and other forms of degradation caused by inappropriate land use within watersheds have a profound impact on the functionality of ecosystems and their provision of critical services.Furthermore, activities associated with extractive industries, such as mining and forestry, along with the development of water resources through the construction of storage structures and

Figure 2.
IWRM in linking local and regional levels and promoting horizontal and vertical coordination.

Economic water scarcity
Little or no water scarcity Not estimated

De nitions and indicators
• Little or no water scarcity.Abundant water resources relative to use, with less than 25% of water from rivers withdrawn for human purposes.• Physical water scarcity (water resources development is approaching or has exceeded sustainable limits).More than 75% of river ows are withdrawn for agriculture, industry, and domestic purposes (accounting for recycling of return ows).This de nition-relating water availability to water demand-implies that dry areas are not necessarily water scarce.• Approaching physical water scarcity.More than 60% of river ows are withdrawn.These basins will experience physical water scarcity in the near future.• Economic water scarcity (human, institutional, and financial capital limit access to water even though water in nature is available locally to meet human demands).Water resources are abundant relative to water use, with less than 25% of water from rivers withdrawn for human purposes, but malnutrition exists.
Source: International Water Management Institute analysis done for the Comprehensive Assessment of Water Management in Agriculture using the Watersim model; chapter 2.
increasing extraction of groundwater all have implications for watershed functions.
The human-induced changes to watersheds are compounded with increased water scarcity.With its inextricable links to food security and economic development, water scarcity, which is driven by population growth, dietary change, urbanisation, globalisation, biofuel production and climate change, is becoming one of the defining issues of the 21st century (Figure 3).
Watershed degradation, urbanisation and population increase are factors that decrease natural resilience to extreme weather events such as storms and torrential rains leading to flash floods in upland areas and extreme inundation of floodplains.These factors therefore reduce the ability of communities and systems to adapt to climate change.
The governance and institutional frameworks within which watershed and river basin management takes place have a strong influence on how IWRM should be approached and which tools are most effective.In turn, this is affected by the capacity of individuals and institutions to make the necessary changes to the established management regimes.These issues need to be assessed and taken into account when devising integrated management approaches.

Evidence-based management
Implementing IWRM approaches successfully must be based on sound evidence and sufficient data.Basing decisions on evidence and sound accounting mechanisms will greatly reduce the chance of making bad or harmful management decisions.
Data on land cover and land use, river discharge, groundwater levels, water quality and water allocation, laws and rights are needed to create policy on allocation processes, determine environmental flow regimes, assess water contamination and salinity intrusion, determine sustainable groundwater yields, negotiate transboundary issues and undertake scenario modelling at the basin level.The evolution, success and more recent loss in momentum of the Landcare programme in Australia provides an excellent example of the critical importance of both top-down and bottom-up approaches to watershed and river basin management.
In 1989 the Australian Prime Minister announced that the 1990s would be the 'Decade of Landcare' by providing a 30-fold increase in funding and securing the support of opposition parties, farmer groups and environmental organisations.The movement grew to contain more than 5000 voluntary community groups and more than one-third of all farming families.The programme received significant investments from the private sector, carried out community-based monitoring, worked to raise awareness in schoolchildren and carried out extensive farm and watershed planning linking action at the farm-scale to watersheds.Significantly, Landcare provided a direct link between regional planning and local community engagement.
The second phase of Landcare involved a scaling up to the catchment or regional level, creating 56 regional/catchment bodies, in an attempt to take a more integrated approach at landscape scale.National investment grew from millions of dollars to billions.
The third phase, from 2007, involved an assetbased investment approach, identifying environmental assets and taking a business plan approach to investment in the highest priorities, with competitive tenders to purchase specific environmental outcomes.
Today, Landcare is moribund in many areas and catchment (watershed) organisations are also struggling.The community appetite for water reform is waning.The lesson to be learned is that both top-down and bottom-up approaches are needed.They are complementary, not alternative approaches.
Land use has an impact on the hydrological regime and quality of water downstream.The importance of this impact varies with the type of land use, the size of the watershed, climate, soil characteristics, topography and geology.The interactions between all these factors are complex and the specific characteristics of each situation need to be considered and the water movement through the basin calculated.
While the adverse affects of sedimentation on reservoirs, waterways, irrigation systems and, sometimes, coastal zones are well known, the impact of land-use practices on the overall sediment yield of river basins is not.Most of a river's sediment load originates from specific locations within the watershed and arrives in the river during extreme climatic events.The delivery of sediment from upstream to downstream is relatively slow and, therefore, any impact from land-use practices will only be felt after several decades, making it very difficult to distinguish between natural and human-induced sediment load and also complicating management decisions.

The importance of scale
The understanding and management of scales in watershed and river basin management is a challenge.When embedding watershed management into river basin management it is important to understand the differences in scale and the implications this has for management.There is a need to re-think scale of intervention, upstream-downstream linkages, temporal and spatial processes, biophysical and socio-economic linkages, and political issues.Extrapolation and up-scaling from watershed to sub-basin or basin scale can have negative consequences if the effects of scale are not well understood (FAO, 2007).
Watershed management decisions are too often based on common myths that disregard the importance of scale and the realities of the complex hydrological cycle.For example, while forests are crucial for the hydrological cycle, as well as the stability and overall ecology of watersheds, they will not prevent large-scale floods in the river basin.Further, while forests are essential for the maintenance of good water quality they use more water, through interception and complex evapotranspiration processes, than other land uses such as grassland or agriculture.Afforestation will therefore reduce total runoff which, especially in semi-arid and arid areas, is of significant concern.The widely held view that 'more trees equal more water' is a misconception in many countries and clarification of this issue is very important (FAO, 2007).

Linking top-down and bottom-up approaches
Experiences with watershed and river basin manage-ment show that it is important to employ both topdown and bottom-up management approaches and to ensure that institutional arrangements provide for linkages between the local level and the national/regional level.Local communities are often the most affected by water management decisions at higher scales and local 'ownership' of the watershed management planning process is a must.However, it is the responsibility of planning and management at the basin level to carefully balance local community needs with those of society as a whole.This is not an easy or rapid process, but it can be facilitated by ensuring communication between all levels of stakeholders and enhancing opportunities for stakeholder involvement.

Integration across sectors, disciplines and institutions
Developing a system that encapsulates the diverse drivers influencing the functionality and services provided by watersheds requires integration across scales, sectors and communities -a challenge that has eluded us to date.Transformation of informal water economies in response to overall economic growth.Source: Shah, 2007 role that formalisation will play (Figure 4).Water economies in developing countries are largely informal with little interface between users and public institutions.Reform efforts focused mainly on direct regulation and management overestimate the capacity of legal provisions and formal institutions to influence water-use patterns.Instead, new indirect and incentive-based approaches are needed in informal economies.Replication of successful models from developed and formal economies is unlikely to work in the largely informal, developing country water economies.Such replication, besides being ineffective, diverts policy attention and scarce public resources away from the real issues.
A completely different IWRM approach is required in highly formalised economies such as those within the European Union.The implementation of the European Water Framework Directive is illustrative, where a range of economic measures are used to reach defined water objectives.An economic analysis of all water users is undertaken as part of the implementation process and fiscal instruments such as water trading are used to protect and save water.Water pricing is used to recover the cost of services and the 'polluter pays' principle is enforced.While there have been some difficulties associated with the implementation of the Water Framework Directive (such as dealing with conflicting policy objectives and encouraging cooperation among countries sharing the same river basin), overall the experience with economic instruments has been very effective in increasing understanding in the natural socio-economic system and facilitating dialogue between users and polluters.

Economics and financing: fundamental to success
There is a chronic shortage of funding for integrated and sustainable watershed and river basin management approaches.Funding is required both to cover the direct costs of watershed and river basin management and to offset the opportunity costs to upstream communities of shifting to more sustainable land and resource uses and/or reducing pollution.Utilisation of market-based mechanisms, such as those provided by the water and energy sectors and the carbon sequestration market, provide promising channels for recovering the operating costs of watershed and river basin management through emerging payment for environmental services schemes.The long-term success and sustainability of any watershed and river basin management initative depends on securing ongoing funding.
Consistent funding can be achieved by establishing (and continually nurturing) partnerships with a wide variety of organisations, both private and public (although mechanisms are being tested for engaging the nonprofit and private sectors in watershed and river basin management, the public-good nature of environmental services justifies the use of public sector funding).Large donor organisations also have a role to play.Exchange of knowledge and experiences among the countries that share a river basin can help to develop common policy frameworks and ensure long-term commitment and steady funding to relevant institutions.

Watershed and river basin management in the Mekong context
The Mekong River Basin The Mekong is one of the World's largest rivers, almost 5000 km long, it runs from the Tibetan Plateau to the South China Sea through six countries: China, Myanmar, Lao PDR, Thailand, Cambodia and Viet Nam (Figure 5).
The multi tude of ecosystems within the Mekong River Basin supports a huge diversity of plants and animals.Wetland ecosystems provide a range of valuable services, including fl ood protecti on and waste water purifi cati on as well as food and material.Monitoring of Mekong waterways shows the river's resilience to the current human induced pressures.Water quality at most sites is good, except in the Mekong Delta where high nutrient levels are a cause for concern.The river's annual fl ood pulse conti nues to support a rich fi shery despite some reports of declining catches.However, the outlook for the basin's forests is not so positi ve, with increasing demand for ti mber and forest land driving deforestati on and degradati on.
The Mekong has become one of the most acti ve regions for hydropower development in the world.In the upper basin, China is implementi ng a cascade of up to eight projects, which will signifi cantly redistribute fl ow from the wet to the dry season.In the LMB, new dams are being planned on both the mainstream and tributaries.The LMB's esti mated hydropower potenti al is 30,000 MW, of which about 10% has been developed, all on Mekong tributaries (MRC 2010).
Most of the 60 million inhabitants of the LMB live in rural areas, where they supplement what they grow with the fi sh they catch and the food and other material they gather from forests and wetlands.The livelihoods and food security of most of the basin's rural inhabitants are closely linked to the Mekong and its waterways.This close relati onship also means that people are parti cularly vulnerable if the river and its wetland ecosystems become degraded (Hall and Bouapao 2011).The Mekong River system faces several major environmental challenges over coming decades.Planned hydropower developments, expansion of irrigati on and waterway transport together with the impacts of climate change will have major implicati ons for the river environment and, in some cases, threaten the biodiversity of the basin's aquati c systems and the livelihoods of those that depend on them.

Water resources management in the Lower Mekong Basin
The four LMB countries made a commitment to IWRM at the World Summit on Sustainable Development in 2002.This has translated into large changes in water resources management over the past fi ve years.The MRC's Member Countries developed clear statements of nati onal water-related policies and strategy, as well as the insti tuti onal and regulatory frameworks to support these policies.IWRM-related policies have become the responsibility of the respecti ve line ministry governing water in the Lower Mekong countries (MRC 2010).In line with the IWRM concept, their mandate is to guide and coordinate water-related issues at all levels of the basin, and thereby ensure sustainable use of water resources.Progressive establishment of river basin organisati ons is taking place.Table 1 provides an overview of the prevailing management arrangements at all levels of the basin, from basin scale down to the local watershed level.IWRM in the LMB countries.In its early days, it was usually seen as an approach to deal with upland issues relating to forestry or land degradation rather than broader water management issues relating to both water quantity and quality (FAO 2006).The ecological functions of watersheds were hence given most prominence in deciding land use and zoning issues.The national level responsibility for watershed management traditionally lay with the line ministry responsible for agriculture and/ or forestry.However, the wider scope of integrated watershed management coupled with evolving IWRM policies and institutions in the LMB might suggest that all levels of the basin should be coordinated by the same policy framework and institutions.However, over the past decade and, in a similar way to the situation for river basin management, the interactions between the ecological and the social and economic functions within a watershed have become better understood.It is now an accepted approach in all LMB countries that watershed management must consider all three dimensions and, through broad consultation with all stakeholders in the watershed, find a suitable balance between the benefits of socio-economic development and the resulting impacts on the watershed's natural resources.

GOOD PRACTICE
The interface between watershed and river basin management is a challenge for policy makers and insti tuti ons responsible for managing inextricably linked land and water resources.Clearly, interventi ons that are made within watersheds over the coming decades will have profound eff ects on the services that these watersheds are able to deliver.For example, the planti ng of new forests and replanti ng of old forests for carbon sequestrati on could potenti ally exacerbate water stress within the context of climate change.Similarly, increased agricultural producti vity to enhance food security for a global populati on of nine billion and to meet the shortterm Millennium Development Goals will signifi cantly infl uence the ability of watersheds to provide water and

Introduction
sustain natural reproducti ve processes.Success in managing competi ng interests in land and water resources is predicated on the understanding of the complexity of these systems, which, to date, is clearly not adequate.
The functi onality of watersheds to reproduce the goods and services that are criti cal for people and the environment conti nues to decline.
Whilst it is not possible to comprehensively discuss the myriad of factors and drivers that infl uence watershed management and associated good practice, selected issues of parti cular relevance for the Mekong region are highlighted below.

Land and water resource challenges for watershed and river basin management
Fundamental to the enti re debate on sustainable watershed management is the eff ect of land cover on water and sediment yields.In the former, watershed yields, when aggregated, control the availability of the water (i.e.runoff and groundwater) at the basin scale and are driven by a range of biophysical and social drivers.Demographic changes in the region (i.e.urbanisati on and human-induced deforestati on), climate variability and demands for water (i.e.industrialisati on) all infl u-ence the quanti ty and quality of water that has its origins in basin watersheds.Oft en the discourse on the impact of land use change is clouded by myths and untruths that become the norm (Box 2).
It is widely and independently acknowledged that deforestati on, resulti ng in a reducti on in evapotranspirati on, increases annual basin water yields whilst aff orestati on, over the longer term, results in a decline in water yields.However, these generalisati ons need to be clarifi ed by noti ng that seasonal fl ows are also a product of soil permeability, soil water storage capacity, and rainfall intensity and the chronology of land cover change.For example, in the case of extreme fl ood events the impact of aff orestati on may become impercepti ble as, over such short periods, evapotranspirati on does not control the runoff response.Consequently, the hydrological impacts of land-cover change at the watershed level do not follow a general rule as they depend on a complex interchange of climati c, soil and biological factors.
Studies on the hydrological impact of land-cover change over large areas (i.e >1000 km 2 ) are extremely rare, in comparison with the abundance of small-scale studies.This is due to several factors: over large areas, the heterogeneity of land cover combined with the spati al variability of climate compounds the att ributi on of observed hydrological changes; and counteracti ng changes in vegetati on cover may occur simultaneously, resulti ng in an apparent basin-wide stability of the runoff produced.This has led to the conclusion that land-cover changes associated with deforestati on at the watershed level have litt le if any impact at the aggregated basin scale.This assumpti on has recently been contested in the LMB through a study of the impact of irreversible bomb-induced deforestati on over 50,000 km 2 which has demonstrated a signifi cant increase in runoff that is measurable in the mainstream (Lacombe et al. 2010).To date, the ability to incorporate land-cover change and its implicati ons for water yields into a hydrological modelling framework for the basin is limited or in its infancy.Addressing this issue would enhance the robustness of modelling capabiliti es.
Human acti viti es in the Mekong Basin contribute to changing the quanti ty and delivery of sediment to the river system.Infrastructure development associated with dam constructi on in the basin is an integral part of the development agenda of several of the countries as demand for energy and food security grows.The Lancang (Upper Mekong) Basin in China already has four mainstream hydropower dams (the Manwan, Dazhaoshan, Jinghong, and Xiaowan), with a further three dams either under construction or planned.Balancing conflicting demands of upstream and downstream stakeholders is a significant challenge within the context of economic development in the basin and a range of future change drivers that include greater climate variability due to climate change.
Hydropower is an important regional development to meet future energy demand.
The functionality, integrity and productivity of both natural and agro-ecosystems of the Mekong Basin are intimately linked to the generation of sediments.In the face of increased economic development in the basin, that will significantly influence sediment delivery, the question arises of how to manage and maintain sediment fluxes at a level that meets these competing demands.This requires greater insights into appropriate levels of sediment to service different needs.The Mekong in its near pristine state maintains near natural levels of sediment fluxes on an annual basis.The suspended sediment load is composed predominantly of silt-sized material transported from highly incised watersheds by rainfall deposited from the southwestern monsoon and snow melt on the Tibetan Plateau.This annual sediment load of more than 160 million tons of silt carries nutrients and carbon that are vital for primary production and the continuity of the aquatic food chain that sustains the inland fisheries of the Tonle Sap and pelagic ecosystems of the delta and associated coastal zone of the Ca Mau peninsula.Further, these sediments and flood waters that transport them are critical for the growth and maintenance of the delta, the functionality of the extensive network of wetlands in the basin and for groundwater recharge in the delta.
As highlighted above, sediment fluxes, along with a range of aquatic ecosystems, are affected by water infrastructure, such as hydropower dams.Using an innovative approach to evaluate the impact of dam configuration on ecosystem connectivity (WWF 2011) it was found that with the current level of large dams in the Mekong Basin (a total of 50 dams), about 46% of the original ecosystem connectivity remains.Incremental dam development will further disconnect ecosystem processes, mainstream dams having a disproportional impact when compared to tributary dams.Whilst the approach focuses on biodiversity and ecosystem processes, adding social and economic valuation for services linked to these processes would further increase its value as a tool for guiding decision makers in basin-wide planning.
A significant area of uncertainty for planners in the Mekong Basin is the impact of climate change on the functionality of watersheds and its aggregated influence on basin water resources.Recent studies indicate that, in the short term, climate variability will manifest itself through greater frequency and more intense extreme events (intensive storms with associated floods; heat waves and prolonged droughts) with as much as a 5% increase in aggregated water yields at the basin scale (Eastham et al. 2008).Over the long term, permanent shifts in weather patterns and seasonality, and altered structure and function of ecosystems may occur, thus influencing the provision of ecosystem goods and services.These shifts may include the greater incidences of plant, animal or human diseases; a preponderance of invasive alien species; and loss of biodiversity within watersheds.Managing these predicted changes at a watershed level offers opportunities to build resilience within local communities.
Building community resilience to climate change and enhancing adaptation requires a concerted effort in capacity building and linking adaptation to mitigation options.For example, programmes that promote carbon sequestration enable adaptation to occur whilst ensuring mitigation.Strategies that enhance skills in disaster risk reduction will ensure greater resilience amongst communities.There is a clear need to integrate climate change mitigation, adaptation and disaster risk reduction into the agenda of water and land management at all levels.Achieving these outcomes will require planning and coordination between all stakeholders.

Implementing good practices
Implementing good practices to secure sustainable watershed management is a prerequisite for ensuring cumulati ve positi ve impacts at the basin scale.However, as previously stated, the management of watersheds should not be seen in isolati on of the river basin.
The necessity for sound accounti ng mechanisms to highlight unintended outcomes and assess impacts at diff erent scales cannot be overstated in the overall management of water resources (Figure 6).Such an auditi ng approach allows managers to esti mate the exact nature of what is oft en a reallocati on of water from one user (or group of users) to another.While this is of parti cular importance in closed or closing basins, such an assessment is an essential first step in assessing the implicati ons of certain interventi ons associated with watershed management.Sound allocati on mechanisms based on the precepts of water accounti ng will ensure that any reallocati on of water is deliberate, and allows for costs and benefi ts to be accurately weighed.Through this approach, informed and facilitated dialogue can occur, so that those who are directly aff ected by watershed change can discuss outcomes, benefi t sharing, support, fi nancial incenti ves and future governance.From a practi cal perspecti ve, the overarching objecti ve of watershed and river basin management is the maintenance of the ecological health of natural resources as a preconditi on for both social and economic development.Forest degradati on, inappropriate land use change, river degradati on, mining and hydropower development, if not undertaken in an appropriate manner, contribute to a decline in the integrity of the ecosystem and its ability to deliver goods and services.

INFLOW Surface and Subsurface Flows Precipitation
Balancing development whilst maintaining ecosystem integrity requires a concerted eff ort in planning that is inclusive and transparent.There are numerous examples of good practi ce in watershed and river basin planning and management in the Mekong region and beyond that meet the desired aspirati ons of stakeholders whilst maintaining the functi onality and integrity of the watershed (Box 3, 4 and 5).
A key element in implementi ng sound water resources management is an integrated management approach that guides the overall planning from the watershed to basin level.In theory, it is a conti nuous negoti ati on process between civil society, the private sector and government insti tuti ons to opti mise the provision of water resources within the watershed and to maintain In an innovative approach, landscape continuum development plans were created to overcome the traditional overlapping roles of watershed and river basin management authorities.Although the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry had traditionally seen itself as the custodian of watershed management, this approach recognized that similar land management activities existed for lowland paddy, sloping lands, regeneration forest, and permanent forest, which were undertaken within many watersheds.This concept allowed the Water Resources and Environment Administration to focus on river basin management, and meant that the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry did not need to distinguish between administrative and watershed boundaries.
Awareness and demand for watershed management as a key element for development at the country level.This requires strong political will and commitment and appropriate policy, institutional and financial mechanisms to support the establishment of organisations that will implement and guide this process.A key measure of success is the continual flow of funds to support these institutions along with effective data exchange between stakeholders.
Evidence of the consolidation phase in which external financial support for watershed projects is minimal.This includes having functional institutional structures in place at different administrative levels (i.e.national, provincial, district and the local level) and the roles and tasks between different levels are recognised and respected by other government agencies.
• • ecological integrity.This approach perceives differences of interest as opportunities to negotiate for the better management of resources and recognises that most disputes over access to natural resources are rooted in technical, social and institutional structures.Clearly, there are challenges and no simple solutions.There is no single approach to watershed and river basin management due to the complexity and diversity of issues and drivers that are unique to each situation.One approach that would go some way to secure positive integrated watershed and river basin management is to develop, from the outset, agreement and clarity in a set of tangible outcomes While the approaches and case studies described above reflect watershed and river basin management and IWRM in action, implementation of these approaches is not easy.
Watershed management over the past 50 years has by no means been a resounding success in the region and the degree of up-scaling of sustainable watershed management in the Mekong Basin is extremely low.Overlap, diffuse and ill-defined roles and responsibility between line agencies and ministries at the provincial and national levels lead to confusion, rivalry and inaction.Communities are often more ready to integrate than provincial or national government agencies that tend to be entrapped in bureaucratic structures or vested interests that make them less responsive to change.Often watershed management initiatives rely on external funding that is defined by donors' interests and governments' budgetary cycles and is invariably short term in nature.Watershed management projects can be characterised by three distinct phases: a pilot phase of 2-3 years; a validation phase of 5 years and a 5-year consolidation and institutional phase (FAO 2006).With each phase there is a decreasing dependency on funds from external sources.This would suggest that it takes at least 12 years to successfully implement a watershed management initiative, which may explain the challenges facing scalability of this approach and the rather mixed results to date.
The following indicators could be used to objectively assess success in watershed management implementation over the mid-term (past 10 years):

Box 4. Planning for hydropower development on the Lancang River (Upper Mekong)
A pragmatic approach by the Chinese Government in the development of Lancang hydropower resources has ensured that environmental concerns are taken into account during the planning process.For example, in order to maintain the migratory passage of fish, the construction of the Mengsong dam was stopped; the operation of the Jinghong dam is synchronised with releases based on downstream navigation requirements and environmental flows; and a stratified water intake approach has been adopted at the Nuozhadu dam (under construction) to mitigate the adverse impact of low-temperature water discharges.Within the upper watersheds of tributaries to the Lancang, soil conservation and reforestation approaches have been promoted to address some of the adverse impacts of land use.These are learning lessons that could assist lower Mekong countries in the planning and implementation of large-scale infrastructure development.

Introduction
Governance is about the way we share power, decisions, benefi ts and risks."We" can be a local village community, the populati on of a watershed, of a nati on, or even of a large transboundary river basin.Watershed governance includes the full spectrum of infl uences, from shaping agendas and deliberati ng opti ons through the design of insti tuti ons and laws to the way these are implemented in the practi ces of day-to-day management of watersheds.
As everything becomes more interconnected, good governance becomes ever more vital, and ever more diffi cult.
There is no one-size-fi ts-all soluti on for the governance challenges facing the Mekong region because "there are many Mekongs", with a wide range of diff ering circumstances: bio-physical (from the Tibetan Plateau to the Vietnam Delta); socio-cultural and historical (crossing many kingdoms, tribes and ethnic groups); and politi cal (diff erent nati ons, diff erent politi cal systems).This diversity makes it necessary to develop and establish locally and nati onally appropriate governance soluti ons, to address the massive changes taking place through water and land-use related investments in the Mekong region.At the same ti me this means that 'copy-cat' approaches or approaches driven by donors do not usually adequately refl ect reality.
The governance debate at the Internati onal Conference on Watershed Management recognized that the Mekong is not the same for all its inhabitants.
The four overriding themes presented below are key issues on governance in watershed and river basin management derived and discussed based mainly on experiences in the Mekong region.

Regulatory frameworks and institutions: the skeleton of governance
Governance is primarily about the management of people, more than the management of the physical aspects of watersheds or river basins.Human behaviour is governed to a large extent by economic incentives and fi nancial disincenti ves or penalti es.Governance mechanisms must refl ect and integrate this reality.
People as well as the environment depend on rivers and their associated services.As the exploitati on of a river increases, cooperation to establish and enforce a regulatory framework is needed to ensure its use is sustainable.Such a framework ideally comprises policies, laws (both statutory and customary), rules and regulati ons, and plans (both strategic, and site management plans).The development, decision and enforcement of these 'rules' requires 'executi ve' insti tuti ons.
In the past decade or so, all Mekong countries have passed formal water, fi sheries, land-use and related laws and created, adjusted and, in some cases, upgraded organisati ons and insti tuti ons to address water and watershed management issues.Some of these changes have been superimposed upon or hybridised with pre-existi ng, informal community-based arrangements; in other cases, they fi lled an insti tuti onal gap.
One important outcome of these reform processes is a diverse range of new or modifi ed local management bodies and insti tuti ons based at watershed and river basin levels.For example, in Lao PDR and Cambodia there are now several hundred community fi shery agreements between riparian communities and local government enti ti es.In Lao PDR, a new and soon to be approved national water resources policy and a strategy and acti on plan have been developed.The ongoing establishment of the Nam Ngum River Basin Committ ee (see Box 6) is already part of implementi ng these regulatory frameworks.Cambodia is trialing concepts of IWRM in river basins (Box 7) but so far has not established formal river basin insti tuti ons.In Vietnam, river basin organisations comprise representation from national and provincial authoriti es (Box 8).Likewise, in Thailand there is a diverse range of watershed networks, committ ees and river basin organisati ons in place or being formed (the fi rst were established some 10 years ago).
The importance of strategic, long-term management plans cannot be overstated.Unfortunately, many river basin organisati ons or committ ees operate mainly on annual plans and budgets, which do not provide the necessary long-term security and stability.

Box 6. Governance through cross-sectoral dialogue and coordination -the Nam Ngum River Basin Committee
The Nam Ngum River is an important tributary of the Mekong in Lao PDR.It is a large basin, which covers four provinces, flows to the national capital of Vientiane and contributes 14% to the Mekong's flow.Cooperation among water users within the basin is particularly important here, as the Nam Ngum is used for a wide variety of purposes such as harnessing energy from its waters, providing irrigated water to farmers, exploiting a diverse mining base and providing for ecotourism activities.In the Nam Ngum River Basin IWRM plan from 2009, six key result areas were identified: building capacity to manage the Nam Ngum river basin, sustainable water use, optimising hydropower outcomes, developing a sustainable irrigation potential of the basin, river sub-basin management, and reducing risks and impacts from water-related disasters.The basin contains five hydropower projects and an additional nine are planned.
In June 2010, the Government of Lao PDR passed a Decree (No. 293) to enable the establishment of river basin committees which paved the way for the formation of the Nam Ngum River Basin Committee.As the first step, the Nam Ngum River Basin Committee Secretariat has been established.The aim of establishing the Nam Ngum River Basin Committee, a government entity, is to create a multi-stakeholder platform to ensure that multiple sectors and agencies are involved in the management of the basin.This is a new and challenging task for the government and the Nam Ngum River Basin Committee is considered a pilot case whereby lessons learned are expected to be applied to other planned river basin committees (e.g in the Nam Theun-Nam Kading river basin).As well, with 18 sub-basins in the Nam Ngum Basin, sub-basin committees are expected to help in facilitating watershed management; for three, the Nam Song, the Nam Ko and the Nam Lik sub-basins, preparation is underway.
While the decree specifies that the basin-level committees are chaired by the Provincial Governor and membership would consist almost exclusively of national and provincial government agencies, there are no such stipulations for the sub-basin committees, opening a window of opportunity to create a dialogue platform with a much stronger participation from civil society, including the private sector.The Vice-Governor is expected to chair the sub-basin committee as well as being Vice-Chair of the Nam Ngum River Basin Committee, thus ensuring that the efforts of civil society involvement and decisions will be integrated at the higher, basin level.A Nam Ngum Hydropower and Mining Forum was discussed as well, to encourage engagement from investors, developers, donors and international organisations.A key management discussion has formed around how to fund the river basin committee and whether and how benefits from the immense developments in the basin can be re-invested for management and conservation efforts.The key issues to address included: flood and drought risks, high poverty rates among ethnic minority groups; forest, land and mining concessions posing a threat to sustainable development particularly for ethnic minority groups; and limited capacity for effective implementation and enforcement of rules and regulations.
Within a supportive framework of government policies, strategies and legislations, IWRM processes have been implemented to facilitate enhanced water resources management.The IWRM process created strong coordination and a widely participatory process among stakeholders from different sectors and geographical locations (upstream and downstream).IWRM best practices were introduced with significant results and outcomes, forming a supportive political will in the local basin, and an approach to promote local knowledge and capacity building for sustainable water resources management and development.
Success to date is due to three factors: 1) involvement of key institutional stakeholders, such as the two provinces and various national line agencies; 2) an active dialogue between stakeholders with confidence and willingness to collaborate; and 3) a holistic (IWRM-based, multi-sector) perspective.It is important to seek mutual adaptation between the (integrated) basin-level development and the (sector-wise) national and province-level public investment planning.

Box 8. The IWRM implementation experience in Viet Nam
Viet Nam's first river basin organisation, created in 1960, was designed with the twin mandates of flood control and multi-purpose development.However, more recently, Viet Nam has undergone significant legislative reforms in an attempt to better integrate river basin management with water resources management via an IWRM framework.
The Law on Water Resources was adopted in 1998 and the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment was created in 2002 and given legal control of water resources.There are now 11 river basin organisations in existence and many are mandated to work towards both planning and environmental protection.
However, Viet Nam is still tackling a variety of challenges with regard to IWRM implementation.The new Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment does not, in practice, have full control over water resources.Many river basin organisations lack any real power, with major studies related to river basin planning being assigned directly to the existing line agencies, leaving river basin organisations to perform solely an administrative role.Integrated watershed management has yet to be promoted and the roles and responsibilities between different agencies and institutions overlap in practice.
The Viet Nam experience illustrates that any significant water resources management reform process is continually evolving and requires longterm commitment.Water governance today needs to be implemented at the river basin level by the river basin organisation with inputs from the local watershed levels through community participation and consensus building.Willingness, trust and a sense of shared responsibility throughout the reform process are vital.Strategic environmental assessments and monitoring systems should be used to supplement the process with important technical information and the functions between different institutions clearly defined.Achieving this is a key challenge for the MRC and all the countries of the Mekong Basin.

Everything is connected: the need for horizontal and vertical integration
"Governance starts where the rain drops fall".Without strong local institutions, implementation in the field will not happen.There are cases of success at the watershed level that can be scaled up to sub-basins and river basins.
Local -watershed level management in the LMB uses a variety of approaches to the participation of local stakeholders.These range from, for example, watershed areas being managed formally or informally as community forests, to watersheds being co-managed as protected forests by Forestry Departments or Protected Area Authorities together with local communities, to the many watersheds that are also militarily sensitive areas managed directly by the countries' armed forces.
Local institutions are necessary but not sufficient for managing watersheds in the Mekong region.While community-based informal institutions may have functioned well in the past, the challenges and conflicts of today require the execution of formal legitimacy, authority and power.Formal authority becomes even more important when managing geographical entities larger than watershed, e.g river basins.
In Thailand, up-scaling of experiences from the watershed level to the river basin and even national level is already happening.Experiences there clearly indicate the importance of including civil society in the decisionmaking processes that involve the natural resources that communities rely upon.Thailand has recently restructured individual river basin committees as well as the national-level body with oversight of all river basin com-mittees to include increasing civil society membership.Viet Nam is currently enlarging non-state participation in river basin organisations as well.
A critical factor in ensuring good management is the relationship between the various organisations involved, all of which have a variety of mandates and responsibilities.Standing alone, most have little formal or practical authority and insufficient resources, regardless of whether they are community or state-led.Inter-agency competition for budgets and other resources is another real impediment for better coordination.
As competition for watershed resources from different sectors such as hydropower, mining and agribusiness, and from other upstream and downstream users, is ever increasing, major challenges regarding the clarification of mandates, inter-agency coordination and collaboration across sectors, disciplines and administrative boundaries, and multi-sector/multi-stakeholder planning processes remain.Governance must be both 'top down' and 'bottom up' and watershed governance must be embedded into river basin management.
The Mekong region is in a race to build social capital, to network across organisations and borders, and to address problems caused by global, regional, and national development pressures and changes.The challenge is to win that race by sharing knowledge across stakeholder groups, networking externally, and supporting champions both young and old, and ensuring that lessons are learnt along the way.It is alright to make mistakes, but not to make the same mistakes over and over again.

Participation: "Enlarging the We"
An important success factor for good governance is inclusion and participation of all relevant stakeholders, i.e the organisations and key individuals who make decisions and/or are affected by those decisions -those who manage and those who are being managed.Management bodies such as river basin organisations instituted by governments usually do not provide sufficient opportunities for civil society (e.g water user groups or other community based organisations) to play a meaningful role in decision-making processes.
'Participation' is a popular buzz word for justifying decisions when, more often than not, those bearing the risks of the most adverse impacts of those decisions, may not have been appropriately included in the discussion (and implementation).On both sides, this often creates an 'us' versus 'them' situation.Better governance is about enlarging the 'we', through inclusion and honest and earnest participation of all those who should have a say, either because of their official role and mandate or because they benefit or suffer from the consequences of decisions at hand.The shift in participation requires flexibility from all parties, government, civil society and the private sector, with a real interest and commitment to learning from and working with each other.Co-management has been identified as a potential mechanism by which this can

Box 9. Around the table: collective water management -the Doi Inthanon National Park, Thailand
The Doi Inthanon National Park near Chiang Mai, which was created in 1954, is home to the highest mountain in Thailand and covers an area of 482 km².

Every year we are fighting for water.
A Karen villager living in the upstream community in Doi Inthanon explains that villagers mainly subsist on upland rice, which they grow once a year.In the downstream communities, 80% of villagers are farmers who grow soybean and tapioca, among other crops.
In 1997, villagers living downstream held protests as actions taken by upstream hill tribes were causing water-related impacts.The lowland communities fought for water because hill tribe people started growing large plantations, which led to larger scale water utilization.This resulted in downstream communities receiving less water, which in turn worsened when chemical fertilisers were used.People and animals could not tolerate the contaminated water.A campaign to force the hill people in Pa Klauy and other communities within the watershed to move started in January 1997 and escalated in May with the Chom Tong Conservation Club blocking the four access roads to the highlands.With the assistance of other environmental NGOs, the Chom Thong Conservation Club also demanded that the government overturn a series of 1997 cabinet resolutions about the rights of local communities to manage their forests, because the resulting upland activities negatively affected the downstream communities.
After the protests in 1997, communities started to come together around a table.Meetings were organized to discuss how to improve water management and determine how much water villagers need during the dry season and how much they can share."If we have trouble about water -people have to talk to each other to solve issues.Agreement is very important."The roundtable was formed to address upstream and downstream water conflicts and is a dialogue space for communities both upstream and downstream to air their concerns, share knowledge and try to find amicable solutions to water-related problems.The roundtable has a watershed leader and has representation by several ethnic groups, National Park officials and Royal project staff, among others.With the help of officials, the hill tribe people were able to understand better the consequences of their actions, the importance of protection of water upstream and the associated impacts downstream.Now the upland and highland communities are demonstrating a number of positive adaptive responses, including making greater efforts to conserve and protect forestlands, and respond to the management goals of government and lowland communities.Efforts to deal with outside stakeholders through facilitated dialogue have allowed new modes of dispute resolution to evolve.Furthermore, the roundtable dialogue has been discussing how lessons from their experiences can be shared among other neighbouring communities and countries.occur, and multi-stakeholder platforms or dialogues are a central tool in enabling these, and ensuring that benefits can be distributed equitably amongst resource interests, as well as an effective method of sustainably managing natural resource bases.A good example is the round-table process of the local watershed management committee in the Doi Inthanon National Park, which succeeded in solving a bitter conflict between upstream (mostly ethnic Karen) and downstream (mostly Thai) communities over resource use, within a period of 5 years (see Box 9).Other examples of tools supporting dialogue at a higher level are the use of the Rapid Sustainability Assessment Tool (RSAT) as a framework for a multi-stakeholder dialogue process and for scoping of the cumulative impact of potential multiple hydropower dam developments (see Box 10).

Box 10. Rapid Basin-wide Hydropower Sustainability Assessment Tool (RSAT)
The Rapid Basin-wide Hydropower Sustainability Assessment Tool (RSAT) was developed to ensure that hydropower projects in the Mekong region are developed in a sustainable way, i.e with minimal adverse social and environmental impacts, while remaining a viable, profitable and renewable source of energy supporting the region's economic development.
RSAT was designed to allow consideration of the dynamic nature of hydropower development, which often involves several projects in a sub-basin being at different stages of development (proposed, committed, under design, under construction and operating) at any one time.Hydropower sustainability is complex.It does not depend on the performance of one responsible group (e.g. industry or government) but on the capacity, performance, interaction and collaboration of a range of key players, each with different roles.Therefore, multiple aspects of hydropower development, institutional arrangements and basin-wide planning are the subject of the assessment tool.

The primary aims of RSAT are:
• To provide a common basis for dialogue and collaboration on sustainable hydropower between key players; • To highlight and prioritise areas of hydropower sustainability risk and opportunity in a particular basin or sub-basin for further more detailed study; • To identify capacity building needs to promote sustainability of hydropower in the basin.
The RSAT does not comprise an exhaustive list of all basin-wide hydropower sustainability issues.It was designed to target the most important issues and assist with dialogue and planning between key players.The range of topics and criteria in RSAT reinforce the inherent multi-disciplinary nature of the sustainability hydropower challenge in the Mekong and the acceptance of a step-wise, comprehensive approach.The tool places emphasis throughout on particular key themes of sustainability that are necessary for a basin-wide approach to sustainable hydropower development.

The importance of transparency, accountability, recourse and compensation
Dialogue and participation are not enough to achieve good governance.They need to be targeted at making the right decisions, based on a clear consensus.However, reaching consensus can take time, so it is important to synchronise decision-making processes with external, and often very rapid, developments, such as the 'management stress' generated by (often external) water and land-use related investments.
There needs to be a mechanism where stakeholders can monitor the quality of the decisions made and how they are implemented.This will improve the likelihood of good decisions being made and implemented well.Transparency is not an end in itself though and authorities that make bad decisions or fail to implement the good decisions should be held accountable.While not guaranteeing good governance, accountability will make it much more likely.
And in those unfortunate cases where bad decisions have been made, there must be the opportunity for legal recourse.In such cases, and in cases where for the wellbeing / benefit of the majority the individual or minority group has to suffer, (monetary) compensation has to be made.

Introduction
Economic forces and conditi ons underlie many of the acti viti es that impact on watersheds and river basins.The land, water and resources of the Mekong Basin have long been subject to intense development pressures.These have been moti vated by the need to secure adequate livelihoods, generate sectoral output, earn business profi ts and achieve macro-level growth and development goals.Economic trends, such as intensifying trade and market integrati on, expanding infrastructure, rapid industrialisati on and urbanisati on, and widespread poverty have all driven these demands.In turn, a host of price, market and policy instruments have, over ti me, been deployed to accelerate development in watersheds and to encourage people to produce, consume or invest in parti cular ways.This has undoubtedly generated substanti al economic gains.Yet such pressing (and oft en competi ng) economic demands have also led to watershed degradati on, and signifi cant costs and losses have oft en been incurred − especially for poorer and more vulnerable groups.
At the same ti me, economic and fi nancial instruments represent key components in the range of tools that can be used to promote more integrated approaches to watershed and river basin management.The provision of appropriate incenti ves acts as a powerful sti mulus to enable and encourage land and resource users, developers and investors (be they governments, private sector companies or local communiti es) to parti cipate in, and benefi t from, more sustainable and equitable development processes.Meanwhile, the search for adequate funding to undertake integrated watershed and river basin management remains a core concern among government agencies across the Mekong Basin.
A variety of economic and fi nancial approaches and tools for integrated watershed management, which have been developed over recent decades, are being applied in the Mekong Basin and elsewhere.These include novel ways of analysing economic costs and benefi ts in watershed decision-making, the introducti on of new prices and markets for watershed goods and services and the development of innovati ve fi nancing mechanisms with which to fund watershed and river basin management.These experiences provide valuable insights and lessons learned for planners and managers.

Watershed and river basin values
There has long been a tendency for decision-makers to under-value both the benefits of more sustainable watershed and river basin management and the costs of watershed degradati on and loss.This poses a major constraint to bett er and more informed watershed and river basin planning.In many cases the economic informati on that is generated to support decision-making excludes those costs and benefi ts that do not accrue on-site or are not easily expressed via market prices, most importantly downstream economic eff ects, ecosystem values, and livelihood impacts.
Yet these values are usually substanti al, and their omission consti tutes a major gap in decision-making.For example, an ongoing study by the WWF Greater Mekong Programme has found that natural forests and wetlands in the four Lower Mekong countries generate water ecosystem services worth billions of dollars a year -and that if current trends in land-use change continue, local, nati onal and regional economies will inevitably incur substantial costs as a result of watershed degradati on and loss.Many other examples from the region also show the economic value of watershed services.In Vienti ane, for example, wetlands off er fl ood att enuati on and waste-water treatment services to citydwellers to a value of about US$2 million per year (Gerrard 2004).Each hectare of forest in Viet Nam's Da Nhim watershed generates downstream benefi ts to hydropower of US$69 (MARD 2008), while the value of Cambodia's watershed forests for soil and water protecti on has been esti mated at between US$75-131 per hectare per year (Hansen and Top 2006).
These types of watershed benefi ts and costs are, however, rarely factored into offi cial economic stati sti cs and measures of growth and development.They tend also not to be refl ected in the prices and market signals that people face as they make decisions about how to produce, consume and invest in watersheds.Various examples from the region, including a history of subsidies and other inducements for environmentally degrading land use acti viti es, show the long-standing dominance of economic policies that have favoured commercial and industrial resource exploitati on -oft en at the expense of more sustainable development trajectories, and to the cost of the livelihoods of the poor (Emerton 2005).As Box 11.Calculating the economic returns to investing in the Upper Tuul Watershed, Mongolia Ulaanbaatar, the capital city of Mongolia, is facing a looming water crisis.Groundwater tables, fed wholly by the Tuul River, have been declining markedly over the last 50 years.Seasonal water shortages are growing ever more common and it seems that sometime within the next 10-15 years the city will face a critical water shortfall.
In response, measures are being set in place to tap into additional groundwater reserves, and to develop surface water storage capacities.However, no future water supply solution will succeed unless sufficient investments are also made to conserve the Upper Tuul watershed.But decision-makers do not see the economic rationale for investing in natural ecosystems for water supplies.A major challenge is to present hard evidence on this: most basically, that a healthy upstream ecosystem will help to ensure clean, regular and adequate water supplies for Ulaanbaatar.
Although watershed conservation, alone, is neither going to guarantee water security nor remove the need to develop additional supply sources, it will impact the ability of built infrastructure to deliver adequate clean water to Ulaanbaatar.Investing in the watershed has the potential to generate significant downstream benefits and save substantially on costs.If the Upper Tuul continues to be degraded, decline in water services will cost the Mongolian economy around US$270 million over the next 10 years.By contrast, every US$1 invested in the conservation of the watershed ecosystem would generate additional water benefits of US$15 a year for downstream Ulaanbaatar.a result, decisions about the 'best' way to develop the watersheds of the Mekong Basin have often been made on the basis of only partial information.At the worst, in the absence of information about watershed values, substantial misallocation of resources has occurred and gone unrecognised and immense economic costs have often been incurred.
Over the past decade however, there has been a progressive shift in the way that watershed values have been calculated and presented to decision-makers.The concept of total economic value has now become one of the most widely used frameworks for identifying and categorising watershed benefits.Instead of focusing only on direct commercial values, it also encompasses subsistence and non-market values, ecological functions and non-use benefits (Emerton and Bos 2004).One example of using watershed valuation to generate economic decision-making support for water-sector investment planners is provided by the case of the Upper Tuul watershed in Mongolia (Box 11).
Economic data is necessary to inform watershed planning and it is of critical importance that this information is perceived by decision-makers as being both credible and meaningful.Information on costs and benefits needs to be set in the context of the sectoral and development goals that drive decisions in watersheds, and combined with social, environmental and institutional information.Experiences gained in implementing the European Union's Water Framework Directive suggest ways of meeting these needs.Most of the work is undertaken by multi-disciplinary teams, and placed firmly in the context of the technical and policy actions that are required to develop and implement river basin management plans and associated programmes of measures − "economic instruments are not the solution, they are part of a solution".This kind of interdisciplinary approach and contextualisation are necessary conditions for economic information to have real impacts on the outcomes of watershed and river basin decisions.

Innovative economic and financial instruments
It is important that as well as demonstrating the costs and benefits associated with watershed investment, land and resource use decisions, the resulting information is used to identify practical measures to create more enabling conditions for integrated watershed and river basin management.Innovative economic and financial instruments need to be developed and used to provide incentives and funding for more sustainable, equitable and efficient management and in support of the functional govern-ance and institutional frameworks that are used to implement them.
Various forms of payments for watershed services (PWS) schemes are emerging as key tools in the Mekong Basin and beyond for providing financial and economic incentives for integrated watershed management.China has seen a particularly rapid growth in the development of PWS over the past decade (Figures 7 and 8), including Note: This excludes16 provincial-level forestry programs, for which no data on starting year is available, but which began sometime since 2001.

Funding watershed and river basin management
An important question, which is generating much debate, is whether such payments will prove to be sufficient to cover the costs and opportunity costs of watershed conservation and sustainable use.As yet, there is not sufficient data to know whether this has been the case -or whether such payments can keep pace with the growing opportunity costs associated with changing land, resource and development patterns in watersheds and river basins.Increasingly, managers are looking to 'stack' or 'bundle' different types of payments so as to increase the amount of funding that can be made available for integrated watershed and river basin management.Carbon finance is identified as one important emerging market in the region, which in many cases can be The topic of financial and economic incentives is also linked closely to the very important issue of funding government watershed and river basin agencies.This is a particularly pertinent concern, given the recent policy and institutional changes that have been taking place in the region as regards the development of new river basin and watershed management authorities.Most, if not all, lack sufficient state budget allocations to deliver on their mandates, and are searching for additional sources of finance.For example, the search for appropriate funding mechanisms is a major concern for the first two pilot river basin committees to be set up in Lao PDR.Building on the principles of 'collective responsibility' and 'shared vision and ownership', the Nam Theun-Nam Kading River Basin Management Pilot Project is exploring a 'cost-counterparting' mechanism under which each river basin committee member agency or sectoral representative will fund river basin management and development activities within the scope of their respective mandates.The Nam Ngum River Basin Committee Secretariat, which is currently in the process of designing a river basin fund, is scoping out the potential of using various financing mechanisms.These involve raising new revenues from a variety of sources, includingas well as core public budgets -corporate contributions, biodiversity offsets, new service fees and payments for river basin services.

Integrati on in watershed and river basin management
In assessing the challenges for sustainable watershed management in the Mekong region, the fundamental premise is that the water cycle and land management are inextricably linked and that without the noti on of spati al scales and the inclusion of all parti es with a vested interest in these resources watershed and river basin management will conti nue to be sub-opti mal.Watershed management needs to move from compartmentalised multi -sectoral eff orts to full integrati on between sectors.Diff erent policies − for agriculture, environment, water, planning, land, poverty, etc. -have oft en worked at cross-purposes or in competition, rather than complementi ng one another.
Within the context of a multi tude of change drivers (i.e.demographic change, economic development, climate change) and unpredictable shocks (i.e.rising food prices, politi cal uncertainty) building resilience into the way land and water resources are managed over the conti nuum of scales will be imperati ve to meet the future challenges.
Management of watersheds aff ects downstream areas, the cumulati ve eff ects of which, in the Mekong River context, potenti ally can lead to eff ects beyond nati onal boundaries.Hence, regional collaborati on in watershed and river basin management is criti cal.

Top-down and bott om-up approaches
Experiences with watershed and river basin management worldwide show that it is important to employ both top-down and bott om-up approaches and to ensure that insti tuti onal arrangements and linkages exist between the local and the nati onal/regional levels.When embedding watershed management in river basin management a key point is to understand the diff erences in scale and the implicati ons for management.Extrapolati on and upscaling should be carried out with cauti on and based on a good understanding of the eff ects of scale.
Balancing landscape management with a focus on livelihood approaches is crucial for developing sustainable watershed management.Numerous examples show that leveraging small changes within the watershed can signifi cantly enhance the provision of ecosystem serv-ices.The challenge is to understand the unique nature of each community and household in a watershed and their decision-making processes, which when aggregated determines the functi onality of the ecosystems in providing the desired goods and services.

Management based on facts not myths
Watershed management decisions are too oft en based on common myths that disregard the importance of scale and the realities of the complex hydrological cycle, natural and agro-ecosystems.In the Mekong Basin, the generati on of sediments is closely linked to the way land and water resources are managed.Ecosystems depend on water fl ow and quality and are also aff ected by physical factors such as infrastructure, which can lead to habitat fragmentati on.Managing the complexity of competi ng and interacti ng demands entails trade-off s and compromises requiring evidence and scientific informati on.The current understanding of these dynamic systems in the Mekong Basin does not meet these criteria.
The potenti al impacts of climate change and the implicati ons for watershed functi ons and services add to the uncertainty and complexity of watershed and river basin management.This calls for adapti ve management ap-proaches which build resilience of communiti es, economies and natural systems, and implementi ng measures to adapt to climate change that are robust with regards to achieving positi ve outcomes.
Economic decision-support informati on can strengthen watershed and river basin planning by helping to highlight the costs, benefi ts and trade-off s that are usually excluded from conservati on and development decisions.However, the lack of accurate and credible data on watershed and river basin values in the Mekong Basin remains a major gap.

Long-term, secure funding
Funding is required both to cover the direct costs of watershed and river basin management and to off set the opportunity costs to upstream communiti es of shift ing to more sustainable land and resource uses.A chronic shortage of funding exists for integrated and sustainable watershed and river basin management approaches, despite their demonstrably high economic value.Various forms of payments for watershed services are emerging as important mechanisms for mobilising fi nancial resources for watershed and river basin management agencies and for providing economic incentives to encourage and enable upstream communiti es to use land and water resources sustainably.However, it is unlikely that these alone would be able to generate sufficient financial and economic resources.

Making watershed and river basin planning more inclusive
Governance is primarily about managing people rather than management of the physical aspects of watersheds and river basins.It is also the way in which society shares power, benefits and risks.An important success factor for good governance is inclusion and participation of all relevant stakeholders, i.e the organisations and key individuals who make decisions and/or are affected by those decisions.
Watershed and river basin management in the Mekong region ranges from informal to formal institutions and from community-based agreements to government established river basin organisations.Over the past decade or so, all Mekong countries have passed formal laws and established organisations and institutions to address watershed and river basin management issues.Some of these have been integrated with or build on pre-existing informal community-based arrangements whereas other filled an institutional gap.
Strong local institutions are necessary as implementation would not occur without them, but when considering the challenges and potential conflicts of today they are not enough for managing watersheds and river basin within the Mekong region.The resource competition from different sectors such as hydropower, mining and agribusiness, and from other upstream and downstream users increases the need for formal legitimacy, authority and power.This becomes even more important when looking at managing larger geographical entities, such as river basins.Major challenges remain regarding the clarification of mandates, inter-agency coordination and collaboration across sectors, disciplines and administrative boundaries, and multi-sector/multi-stakeholder planning processes.A critical factor in ensuring good governance is a clear relationship and integration between the various organisations and levels.

Best-practice management
Implementing best practices to secure sustainable watershed management is a prerequisite for ensuring cumulative positive impacts at the basin scale.However, the adoption of best practices amongst communities that depend on natural resources for their livelihoods has been less than optimal.Although examples of successful implementation of best practice through projectbased interventions exist, they have not been up-scaled despite decades of effort.The approach to watershed management can best be described as piecemeal with limited coordination between stakeholders, sectors and institutional levels.
The concepts of IWRM that encapsulate appropriate governance, institutional and financial instruments that ensure the implementation of good practice and scalability have been proposed as a possible mechanism to address this issue.Implementation of IWRM, however, faces many challenges, such as overlap of, as well as illdefined roles and responsibility between line agencies and ministries at the local, provincial and national levels.

Recommendations
Management of natural resources must take account of the links between land and water and the importance of integration across sectors, disciplines, institutions and scales.

Integrated watershed and river basin management
Policy-makers and industry groups should collaborate with government departments, donors, NGOs and the community to collaboratively move towards a fully integrated IWRM process across scales.
Adaptive management approaches must be applied in watershed and river basin management.The LMB countries should discuss how development and resource protection within watersheds can be managed and balanced in the best way to take account of effects both inside and outside the watershed, and also transboundary effects, in an open and transparent manner.Strong regional institutions, such as the MRC, can play a key role in promoting negotiation and dialogue between upstream and downstream administrative units or countries, particularly where local interventions affect transboundary watersheds and river basins.

Evidence is needed
Watershed managers and agencies in the Mekong Basin countries must make the collection of scientific data, including monitoring and modelling data, a priority to support and inform the decision making process for integrated watershed and river basin management.
Efforts need to be invested in communication to present economic arguments about the gains from integrated watershed management to decision-makers and policy- makers.These messages must be targeted to the public and private sector decision-makers who impact on land and water resources and make investment choices in Mekong Basin countries.
Governments and local informal institutions should be flexible and have a commitment to learning from each other.Dialogue needs to occur with all and it is not only local.

Appropriate governance solutions
Innovative institutional arrangements and approaches in watershed management that have proven their value at the local scale should be incorporated in river basin management at the national and regional scale, keeping in mind that the diversity of the Mekong region requires locally and nationally appropriate governance solutions.More efforts are needed to improve transparency, accountability and (legal) recourse/compensation aspects of governance.

Diversity in financial instruments and funding mechanisms
Incentives and financing mechanisms which aim to enhance both the sustainability and equity of economic activities in the Mekong region must be considered as they have the potential to significantly increase the contribution of watershed development to pro-poor economic growth in the LMB.
The provision of new incentives and funding for sustainable development in watersheds must also be accompanied by actions to dismantle the perverse economic incentives and disincentives, which currently reward or encourage watershed degradation.
Economic and financial instruments should be combined with other tools and approaches and take account of the legal, political and governance realities in which they are being implemented.
Watershed and river basin managers and agencies need to look to a diverse portfolio of funding mechanisms and incentives to enhance the financial sustainability of watershed and river basin management.

1
Figure 1.A watershed is the natural delineati on of a unit of land draining into a common outlet along a stream channel.Source: GIZ.
Figure 3. Global water scarcity.Source: International Water Management Institute Figure 4.Transformation of informal water economies in response to overall economic growth.Source:Shah, 2007

Reality•
Aff orestati on may decrease water yield • Vegetati ve cover has litt le eff ect on large fl oods • Erosion may be caused by variati ons in climate and vegetati on or spot sources • Roots are pumps Folklore • Aff orestati on increases water yield • Vegetati ve cover reduces large fl oods • Planti ng trees reduces erosion • Roots are sponges Box 2. Myths associated with land cover

Figure 6 .
Figure 6.Water accounti ng to support management decisions on allocati on to stakeholders.Source: Molden and Sakthivadivel, 1999

Box 5 .
Micro watershed development in the Uttarakhand, HimalayasHimalayan watersheds face a range of change drivers, including population and developmental pressures, deforestation and changing land use patterns.Critical in the overall planning process is that water resources are sustainably managed in the face of such change and that the resilience of local populations and ecosystems is assessed and increased.Past failures in appropriate land management have resulted in increased soil erosion and deforestation, resulting in reduced groundwater availability and seasonal decrease in surface water run-off.There is widespread concern among communities in the region over declining water security with an expectation that this situation will intensify in the future.
The inauguration of the Nam Ngum River Basin Committee Secretariat Office.Box 7. Linking watershed management to IWRM -the case of the 4-Ps, Cambodia The 4-Ps Basin is located in the provinces of Kratie and Mondulkiri, Cambodia.The area, in which most people are subsistence farmers, lacked comprehensive planning for sustainable development.The Cambodia Royal Government in 2007 began pilot activities to implement the concepts of IWRM with the support of the Global Water Partnership and Asian Development Bank.

F
r o m L o c a l W a t e r s h e d M a n a g e m e n t t o I n t e g r a t e d R i v e r B a s i n M a n a g e m e n t E c o n o m i c s a n d f i n a n c i n g used to supplement water-based PWS schemes (Wertz-Kanounnikoff and Kongphan-Apirak 2008).A number of new initiatives in Lower Mekong countries are attempting to mobilise payments for the carbon sequestration services provided by forests and other natural habitats in watersheds.A growing number of Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (UN-REDD+) pilot projects are for example starting to be developed in important watershed areas, including Oddar Meanchey and the Southern Cardamom Mountains in Cambodia, and in Dak Nong and Lam Dong provinces in Viet Nam.
C o n c l u s i o n s a n d r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s

Table 1 .
Indicative management arrangements for IWRM in the lower Mekong countries *MOWRAM -Ministry of Water Resources, Agriculture and Meteorology, Cambodia; WREA -Water Resources and Environment Administration, Lao PDR; MNRE -Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment, Thailand; MONRE -Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment, Viet Nam

Box 3. River basin and watershed management -the Nam Ngum River Basin Development Project
Planning was coordinated at several levels.At the village level, the project supported the government's land-use planning and land allocation programme to promote sustainable agricultural, livestock, agroforestry and forestry management.At the sub-basin level, watershed management plans were prepared for 21 sub-basins and used to inform the village, district and provincial development planning process.National and Nam Ngum river basin profiles were also prepared.Key policy and institutional initiatives included promoting close coordination between the Ministry ofAgriculture and Forestry, the Water Resources and Environment Administration (that was established and supported during the project) and the Ministry of Energy and Mines, and establishing the Nam Ngum River Basin Committee.Much effort was also put into defining and agreeing on the respective roles of these agencies in river basin and watershed management.

China per Year, 1999-2008
In Lao PDR, private-sector hydropower developers have been particularly active in funding watershed management and watershed managers in recognition of the eco-Box 12. Payments for forest environmental services Lam Dong and Son La Provinces, Viet Nam The idea of payments for environmental services began to take hold in Viet Nam in 2005.In 2008, the government issued Decision No 380/QD-TTg on piloting Payments for Forest Environmental Services in Lam Dong and Son La Provinces.These two schemes have been developed collaboratively between the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development and external donors: USAID/Winrock International in Lam Dong, and GIZ in Son La.Similar systems operate in both provinces.