Roundtable III - Water Governance and Policy

Background Paper: Some Comments on the Challenges Facing Water Management in Latin America
Sub-track: Water Related Decision-Making Processes
Sub-track: Water Law and Institutional Arrangements

Co-Chairs

Evan Vlachos, Professor and Associate Director, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA

Axel Dourojeanni, Director, Division of Natural Resources and Energy, United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC), Santiago, Chile

Sub-track: Water Related Decision-Making Processes

Richard Hamann, Associate in Law Research, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA

Marco A. Gonzalez, Secretary General, Nicaraguan Foundation for Sustainable Development, Nicaragua

David Getches, Professor, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado, USA

Jose A. Urrutia, Consultant on Environmental Law and Professor, Universidad de Chile, Santiago, Chile

Steve S. Light, Policy Director, South Florida Water Management District, West Palm Beach, Florida, USA

Some Comments on the Challenge Facing Water Management in Latin America, by Axel Dourojeanni and Terence Lee, U.N. Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (UN/ECLAC), Santiago, Chile

Sub-track: Water Related Decision-Making Processes

1. The Need to Integrate Environmental Ethics into Environmental Science, Law, and Economics in Water Resources Decision-Making, by Donald A. Brown, Pennsylvania Department of Natural Resources, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, USA.

2. Negotiating Collaborative Solutions in Disputes Over Water Resources, by Barbara Gray, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania, USA.

3. Rio San Juan Basin: A Case of Conflict in Management of a Bi-National, by Marco A. Gonzalez, Nicaraguan Foundation for Sustainable Development, Managua, Nicaragua.

4. Water Quality as a Top Priority for the U.N. Commission on Sustainable Development, by Steve Parcells, National Audubon Society, Washington, DC, USA; and Deborah Moore, Environmental Defense Fund, Oakland, California, USA

5. The World Bank - Water Resources Management Policy, by Francois-Marie Patorni, The World Bank, Washington, DC, USA.

6. The Issue of Equity in International Environmental Negotiations: The Perspective of a Developing Country, by Diana Ponce-Nava, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (UNAM), Mexico.

7. Integrated Conservation Planning in the Cuiabá River Basin, Mato Grosso, Brazil, by William J. Possiel, The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, Virginia, USA.; Adalberto Eberhardt and Angela Tresinari, Fundação Ecotrópica, Cuiabá, Mato Grosso, Brazil

8. Enhanced Decision-Making, by Warren Viessman, Jr., University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA

Sub-track: Water Law and Institutional Arrangements

9. The Impact of Multilateral Financing on Costa Rican Water Law Institutions, by Rodrigo G. Barahona. Environmental and Natural Resources Law Center (CEDARENA), San Pedro, Costa Rica

10. Legal and Institutional Aspects of Water Charges in Brazil, by Benedito P.F. Braga, Jr., Escola Politecnica da Universidad de Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, Brazil.

11. New Instruments to Improve Water Management in México, by Jaime Collado, Mexican Institute of Water Technology (IMTA), Cuernavaca, Mexico

12. Organizational Structures for Interstate and International Coordination of Water Management, by Julio C. Fossati, Comité de Recursos Hídricos de la Cuenca del Plata, Buenos Aires, Argentina

13. Sustainable Development and Management of Water Resources - A River Basin Approach, by Gerald M. Hansler, Delaware River Basin Commission, West Trenton, NJ, USA

14. Great Lakes Remedial Action Plans: Building the Institutional Capacity to Restore Beneficial Uses, by John H. Hartig, Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan, USA

15. Integrated Water Management in Chile: An Ongoing Process, by Gustavo Manriquez and Jaime Muñoz R., General Directorate of Water, Ministry of Public Works, Santiago, Chile (presented by Carmen L. Gutierrez, Regional Director of the Ministry of Public Works, Region V, Valparaiso, Chile).

Background Paper: Some Comments on the Challenges Facing Water Management in Latin America

Axel Dourojeanni and Terence Lee¹

¹ Division of Natural Resources and Energy, United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean, Casilla 179, Vitacura, Santiago, Chile

The Evolution Of Water Management In Latin America

Latin America enjoys a long tradition of controlled water use for specific social ends, and water management institutions have been important in the historical development of many Latin American societies. Contemporary water management in Latin America amalgamates these traditional models and more recent attempts to introduce management concepts based on the European and North American models.

Social control of water resources in Latin America considerably predates the arrival of European colonizers in the 15th century. The control of water use in pre-Colombian societies was a significant public activity which formed a fundamental part of the socio-institutional structure. Although much of the existing social structure was destroyed, the Spanish colonizers emphasized the social control of water use, replacing pre-Colombian water management norms with methods brought from Spain based on the Roman and Moorish traditions prevalent there.

The Spanish systems remained the norm until the countries of Latin America gained independence and drafted their own constitutions. These constitutions, in general, declared water to be a public good and laid the foundation for public intervention in the management of the resource. Water management was, however, largely a function of local government.

Beginning in the 1920's and continuing for almost half a century, national single-purpose institutions became the prevailing management form. This trend continued until the advent of other influences over the organization of water management and the nature of the emerging institutions changed in the 1970's. For example, in Argentina the consolidation of federal single purpose institutions was reversed as a strong decentralization policy was adopted, transferring responsibility back to the provinces.

In other countries, however, the process of forming single purpose national institutions continues, although in some cases it is accompanied by the introduction of other modalities of water management. External influences over water management affected the evolution of policy with the reestablishment, on a much different scale, of the international and regional financial and development agencies following the second world war. The activities of these agencies reached a significant scale and level of influence by the early 1950's and accompanied a new stage of water management in Latin America.

The new, widespread adoption of organizational arrangements based on centralized single purpose institutions largely reflected the influence of the multilateral financial and technical assistance agencies, as did the use of water control projects as a means for achieving economic and social development. At the same time, the multilateral financial agencies exerted strong influences over water management through the conditions accompanying the provision of loans.

The international agencies, although they tend to be organized by sector, have strongly favored coordination and integrated river basin management. The actual practice in the region remains very different. There have been isolated applications of the concept in various countries, but with the exception of Colombia, few successful examples of integrated river basin management exist.

Even the application of the concept in water planning is not common. For example, the Mexican national water plan uses a regionalization at the highest level of aggregation which respects river basin boundaries, but the subregions used as the basic operational spatial units are defined by administrative boundaries. Moreover, even at the highest level of aggregation, some of the major basins are subdivided rather than treated as single units from source to mouth.

The Main Factors Influencing Contemporary Approaches to Water Management in the Region

Over the last decade, a series of changes have occurred in the countries of the region which have resulted in the reduction of the intervention of the state in the economy and to the increasing role of the private sector, including in some countries of the establishment of systems of private ownership of water rights.

The reform of the public sector has resulted in changes in both the management of individual uses (the management of demand) and in the management of all uses (management of supply).

a) Factors influencing the changes in the management of individual uses include:

· The need to improve the economic and financial efficiency of the management of water supply and sanitation companies, electricity companies and irrigation districts and other activities related to water use in accordance to a private enterprise.

· The increasing costs of obtaining, distributing and treating water in the constantly expanding large metropolitan areas as sources ever more distant have to be used and as the necessity to reduce pollution becomes ever more pressing.

· The conflicts that arise with the rural inhabitants and municipal governments, located in the river basins from which the water and hydroenergy is being transferred to large cities.

· The continual increase in the demand of water for irrigation and the increasing value of some agricultural products, largely for export, which need a level of technical management beyond that traditionally applied. This requires the creation of agricultural water management institutions capable of managing complex systems of water regulation, distribution and drainage.

· The explosive increase in the number of the urban poor. The majority of this population live in marginal areas subject to floods and landslides and where the provision of basic services - water, sewers, drainage - is both costly and difficult.

· Related to the above, there is an urgent need to improve the quality of life in rural areas. The development and management of water resources in rural areas is the first constraint to be overcome to achieve this goal, specially in relation with water supply and sanitation, energy and agriculture.

· A noticeable increase in the economic and financial losses from water-related natural hazards, such as droughts and floods and increasing delays in the construction of regulation works. For example, Argentina, Colombia and Peru have suffered huge energy losses through drought in recent years. Flooding has led to increasing losses from the destruction of water control systems, irrigation systems etc.

· The concern and constraint imposed by environmental laws, at international, national and even municipal level, including agreements related to the management of river basins and water resources shared by more than one country (transboundary water).

· In addition, in some countries there is an increasingly evident deterioration in hydraulic structures due to age and the lack of maintenance. In many cities the maintenance and expansion of water supply and sanitation systems has not kept place with population growth and structural changes (the construction of high buildings).

b) In the area of multiple water use management (supply management), there are also a number of factors inducing change towards more integrated management.

· First, the increasing competition for water, in terms of both quantity and quality, which can only be resolved through conciliating the interests of different users by integrated management. There is an increase in the multiple uses of water as well as new interests such as improving navigation, aquaculture, recreation, and control of water quality.

· A further area of competition for water is provided by the irrational expansion of human occupation of areas some of them subject to landslide and flooding or suffering from serious water shortages. This has lead to the destruction of the natural vegetation in many watersheds, reduction of the base flow and the overexploitation of groundwater among other conflicts.

· Industrial growth has contributed more and new pollutants, the use of old and new fertilizers and pesticides, the expansion of mining, the clandestine production of cocaine and the resurgence of epidemics, such as that of cholera, have surpassed the capacity of any individual water use sector to confront the pollution problem. The public health authorities, who traditionally have had responsibility for these problems, are quite incapable of managing them due to the lack of authority, resources and operational capacity.

· A further important factor is that a wider variety of water users are getting political power. For example, peoples involved in fish fanning, whether in rivers, lakes or estuaries, has produced strong new pressure for better water quality. Similarly, pressure for watershed management, mainly for erosion control, has come from the construction of reservoirs for diverse purposes.

· Extreme events - droughts, floods and landslides - have also led to users joining forces to develop control measures for their common benefit and to distribute the cost of works according to the benefits received. Such developments are still incipient, however, due to the lack of organization and financial weakness of many users.

· Surprisingly perhaps, water management is more difficult when there is a single large water user, (e.g. a mining company) with no competition for water quality or quantity. Integrated water management is more easily achieved between strong organizations in conflict.

· Concern for integrated water management is non existent in regions dominated by the so called “informal sector: illegal gold mining, using mercury, or by the production of drugs, where a number of acids and other chemicals are used, or, even where, migrant farmers slash and burn forested slopes”. (by far the most difficult areas to work are located in the head waters of the Amazon Basin and in any tropical area with very difficult access)

· The economic, financial and environmental demands of the multi-lateral banks and the information and organizations that they request to countries in their operations.

· The work of the innumerable international organizations which both directly and indirectly have an interest in good water management. The OAS, FAO, IIMI, WMO, UNESCO, UNDRO, PAHO, ECLAC and many others have made a significant contribution to knowledge in the countries as well as to the promotion of horizontal cooperation through the formation of expert groups, networks of institutions and other means.

· International agreements on environmental matters in general, and on water matters in particular, have also had their influence. For example the recommendations of the United Nations Water Conference, the more recent Dublin Conference and UNCED as embodied in Agenda 21 as well as the “decades” related to water resources have been important steps that still supporting activities on water resources.

· Bilateral technical assistance has been very influential. Countries such as the Netherlands in drainage and land reclamation, France in groundwater and more recently in integrated river basin management, Germany in the promotion of training, Italy in watershed studies, and the United States in the training of professionals in its universities, to mention only a few examples, have assisted the diffusion of modern technology and cooperation among the professionals of the region.

· The Universities, NGO's, professional organizations, and other centers of education in both the public and private sectors have also played an important role in the promotion of the idea of integrated river basin management.

Recently, water management has once again attracted the attention of governments and water users after almost 10 to 15 years of serious neglect. The great majority of hydraulics works that have still being constructed were designed and financed in earlier periods. The state water administrations have been greatly reduced in personnel and resources where they have not been abolished. Policies has transferred many responsibilities on water management to private sectors and local governments without any support to assume such works.

In education and intellectual circles, water management has also been somewhat relegated to secondary importance with the emphasis on environmental quality. At the time of the first Conference on the Environment at Stockholm in 1972, only a few countries had an organized institutional system to administer water resources, forests or wildlife.

In 1972 the elaboration of national plans for water management had hardly begun and few of these have been implemented when the countries embraced the idea on environmental management. In these plans the problem of the management of water for multiple use was hardly considered.

There are few training programmes and institutions which specializes in water resources management. In contrast, there is an abundance of studies and training activities in specific areas of water resources development, mainly for the design and construction of hydraulics structures related to irrigation and drainage, water supply, hydroenergy and others. Such knowledge is easily transferred from one country to another, something that can not be said for management practices.

Without enough background in the organization for the management of individual natural resources the countries of Latin America and the Caribbean have tried to incorporate, in policies and laws, conditions for “global environmental management”. In some cases Ministries of the Environment have even been created. They have tried to manage the environment on a “holistic” approach, even covering such matters as global warming and the hole in the ozone layer without having yet the conditions to manage a single resource, such as water, on a large, integrated, scale.

Only recently has it begun to be realized that the sought after sustainable development can only be achieved starting through the management of some basic natural resources such as water. Water resource management is an excellent basis to begin to integrate actions aimed at achieving environmental sustainability. In fact integrated water resources management is probably the area where Latin America has more opportunities to do something important in a short term in relation with the goals of agenda 21.

These developments in the appreciation of the environment issue, have accompanied the profound economic crisis of the 1980's and the tremendous changes introduced in the direction of both macroeconomic and microeconomic policies, with the emphasis on the role of the private sector.

This is the background which has set the range of options and created the obstacles which face the countries of the region in trying to improve their systems for water management. It is necessary to develop a general change of opinion about the alternatives which are available and on how to overcome the many obstacles still in the way. Among the managerial issues to be discussed are:

· Legislation - one of the first actions of many governments has been the revision of water legislation, adapting them in some cases to new constitutions which enshrine the right to private property. The granting by the state of water rights with the character of real property which once granted may be freely traded is a result of this approach. Chile was the first country to adopt legislation embodying this concept and other countries are now following this example. The adoption of such an approach is certainly one of the issues most under discussion at the moment.

· Privatization - the privatization of many activities related to water, such as water supply, electricity generation etc., together with the transfer to farmers of the responsibility for irrigation schemes has caused profound changes in water management systems. Some of the questions presented by this transfer are to whom will large irrigation schemes be transferred, what form of organization should be used by farmers, what will be the future role of the state in management, and what will be the source of finance for farmer operated systems?. The situation varies among countries according to their histories, but it is a region wide trend.

· Financing - Related to the privatization there is a full spectrum of studies and proposals that needs to be made in relation with financial aspects. The role of the state and the private sector needs to be clarified in relation with subsidies for the low income sector of the population in urban and rural areas, sharing of the costs of main hydraulic structures as well as for the construction of flood control devices and other protective measures.

· Organization for Multiple Use Management - the main question remains how to organize for multiple use management in each country and in each river basin or water system? The available alternatives are all questionable. Some suggest the creation of basin authorities within the public sector with authority over all users. Others propose private systems with user participation in which the state would play a secondary role. Yet others propose only that the public sector should be better coordinated in each actions.

· Organization and legislation for the management on transboundary waters. This is an aspect that still needs further consideration to.

In water management policy various initiatives have been stopped or modified by changes in government or have simply stagnated due to the lack of political agreement over major issues such as privatization. In many countries, the major decisions on the definition of the role of the public and private sectors are still to be taken. It is often the case that major decisions are taken in the absence of sufficient information on the part of the politicians. Decisions have been taken, in other cases, for policy reasons in ignorance of the reality of the water systems.

There are a number of draft water laws which are blocked by the need to conciliate them with the emerging environmental legislation. In some countries, e.g. Peru, the constitution itself is being reformulated so that any change in the laws relating to water have to await the outcome of the constitutional debate. Elsewhere, where water laws have been reformulated, as in Chile, the laws are under revision in the light of experience.

In respect of institutional structure, there are conflicts between the creation of river basin commissions and the regional authorities being created to decentralize government. This is especially the case when it is proposed to give the commissions more authority than the regions. There are also arguments about which Ministry should have the national water authority so that it can really have multi-sectorial jurisdiction. In addition, the debate over the role of the public and private sectors continues and there are arguments among ministries, municipalities and the private sector on who should have responsibility for a particular water body.

The technical aspects of the issues under consideration are frequently not considered in the discussions on water management. These discussions are commonly led by politicians, economists or lawyers without knowledge of the nature of hydrologic systems and in the absence of technical advisors.

There is, in general, a terrible lack of information on water quantity and quality, the flows are not frequently measured for which rights must be established. The majority of information on water users needs to be brought up to date in many countries. More complex tools, such as models permitting the joint management of surface and ground water do exist only for a few areas. The networks for the collection of hydrologic information are very weak compared with the needs, specially in mountain areas.

As we can see, there remains a tremendous task ahead in each country of Latin America and the Caribbean in the rationalization of water management. Most countries have excellent professionals working in water resources, as can be seen from the discussions in the meetings held in the region. They face, however, many challenges in their work which fall largely outside their direct competence. The work to be done has to be equal to the challenges which are coming from outside.

It is necessary to begin by evaluating what is actually happening in water management in each country before proposing any significant changes in laws or institutional structures. It is obvious that the governing political and economic ideas do not take adequate consideration of the particular characteristics of water (externalities, chance, economies of scale, ecological aspects etc.).

Secondly, it is essential that the economic and financial foundation of any proposed legal or institutional changes should be clearly identified. Economic and financial analysis which should support the viable application of the new rules are too often poor or nonexistent. There is commonly confusion as to the meaning of prices, charges, costs, taxes and other financial instruments.

Third, it is urgently necessary to give priority to the organization of good systems for integrated water management. This is especially the case for the operation and maintenance and repair of existing multiple use works and for the management, rehabilitation and conservation of water supply basins. Water quality of both surface and groundwater must receive priority attention together with protection from extreme events.

Fourth, training in multiple use water management is essential. It is necessary to reinforce the work of institutions such as CIDIAT in Venezuela, the Fundación Getulio Vargas in Brazil, INCYTH in Argentina and ESAN in el Peru which have already entered into this activity with appropriate training material. As well as, promote the formation of centers elsewhere. To this end it is necessary to agree on criteria and concepts for management and financial systems as well as on the treatment to be given to environmental considerations. Documentation is need which provides positive suggestions for integrated water management and for the financing of multiple use within river basins.

Fifth, there is an urgent need to improve cooperation among countries and institutions active in integrated water management. The existing networks need to be reinforced. It is essential that the networks have stable financing to permit them to achieve their goals of the exchange of experience and knowledge. It should be possible to obtain greater contributions from the more profitable water uses, such as drinking water supply and electricity generation to support these activities. In the past, these institutions have shown little interest, however, in integrated water management. Perhaps, this is one are where privatization might bring real change.

Some international organizations, particularly the multilateral banks, have not contributed firmly to the development of integrated multiple purpose water management. They have tended to be very much project oriented and tended to “parcel-out” water use. Even the environmental studies they demand are usually limited to individual projects. There is much room for improved collaboration by the banks in the achievement of integrated multiple use water management as well as watershed management.

Sub-track: Water Related Decision-Making Processes

The Need to Integrate Environmental Ethics into Environmental Science, Law, and Economics in Water Resources Decision-Making
Negotiating Collaborative Solutions to Disputes Over Water Resources
Rio San Juan River Basin: A Case of Conflict in Management of a Bi-National Basin
Water Quality as a Top Priority for the U.N. Commission on Sustainable Development
The World Bank - Water Resources Management Policy
The Issue of Equity in International Environmental Negotiations: The Perspective of Developing Countries
Integrated Conservation Planning in the Cuiabá River Basin, Mato Grosso, Brazil
Enhanced Decision Making

The Need to Integrate Environmental Ethics into Environmental Science, Law, and Economics in Water Resources Decision-Making

Donald A. Brown¹

¹ Director, Bureau of Hazardous Sites and Superfund Enforcement, Office of Chief Counsel, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources, 401 Chestnut Street, Harrisburg, PA 10101, USA

Are we at a dangerous defining point in human history? According to a report entitled Our Common Future prepared for the United Nations by the World Commission On Environment and Development in 1987, rapid deterioration of the global environment is threatening life on earth. This report concluded that decisive political action is needed to ensure human survival. Our Common Future identified several environmental trends that threaten “to radically alter the planet, and many species upon it, including the human species.” Environmental deterioration identified in the report included: (1) rapid loss of productive dryland that was being transformed into desert; (2) rapid loss of forests; (3) global warming caused by increases in greenhouse gases; (4) loss of the atmosphere's protective ozone shield due to industrial gases; and (5) the pollution of surface and groundwater supplies caused by the release of toxic substances.

The scientific evidence of growing environmental degradation relied upon in Our Common Future is of even greater concern because the earth's environment is exhibiting stresses at a current population of approximately 5.5 billion people. These visible signs of deterioration become even more ominous when one considers the rapid growth in population expected for our planet in the 21st century. Because population may grow to 10 billion by 2050 and between 12 and 14 billion people by the end of the next century, Our Common Future concluded that urgent and decisive political action was necessary to prevent widespread environmental destruction.

Of equal historical significance as its environmental conclusions, Our Common Future also focused world attention on the futility of separating economic development problems from environmental issues. The report explained how some forms of development eroded the environmental resources upon which they must be based, and how environmental degradation undermines economic development. For instance, development that can't afford to pay for treatment of sewage creates water pollution, and polluted water limits future development options. In addition, in many developing countries, in the absence of help from the developed world, rapid depletion of natural resources is the only hope of eradicating poverty. Thus, the report concluded that “poverty is a major cause and effect of global environmental problems.” That is, there is no hope of solving the global environmental problems unless the international community works rapidly to resolve problems of human development throughout the world.

To solve the twin problems of environmental degradation and unacceptable development, Our Common Future called for a world political transformation that supported “sustainable development” throughout the world. Sustainable development was defined as development which meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs. Our Common Future put sustainable development on the front burner throughout the world.

The United Nations Conference on Environment and Development in June of 1992, generally known as the Earth Summit, was the largest and most ambitious international conference of all time. 110 heads of state assembled at the Earth Summit, more than any other previous international conference.²

Five documents were signed in Rio. They were: (1) The Treaty on Climate Change; (2) The Treaty on Biodiversity; (3) The Convention on Forest Principles; (4) The Rio Declaration; and (5) Agenda 21.³

Although it did not receive as much publicity in the United Slates and some parts of the world as the Treaties on Climate Change and Biodiversity, Agenda 21 may prove to be the most significant of all the Earth Summit agreements. This document is an 800 page blueprint for international action in the 21st century. It contains 40 chapters focused on solving the twin problems of environmental protection and sustainable development.

Although much was agreed to in principle in Rio in signing Agenda 21, most of the details on environmental goals and standards and commitments of the developed world to the developing world will have to be worked out in more specific treaties, conventions, laws, and institutional changes in the years ahead. Great controversy lies ahead.

There are many thorny ethical questions that the world needs to face in implementing the Earth Summit agreements. What should governments do to control population? If the developed world has created much of the existing global pollution and the developing world needs to develop its natural resources to escape from poverty, what are the obligations of developed to developing countries? What should the people of the earth do about global environmental problems when there is some evidence about environmental damages, but where there is pervasive scientific uncertainty about the nature of the danger? These are just a few of the many ethical questions that will need to be faced in implementing the Untied Nations program on environment and development.

Nothing is the same after the Earth Summit. No longer can humans assume that resources are inexhaustible and that humans are above and separate from a nature that is exclusively available for human use. The problems that must be faced in implementing Agenda 21 call into question much of the world view that has been dominant during the period of world industrialization.

Because humans are on a track that can lead to the destruction of much of life on earth, the world community is urgently challenged to develop an ethic that will not only recognize the duties that people have to care for other humans, but also to future generations and other forms of life with which we share this planet.

Some have argued that because of the urgency of the need for political and personal transformation to avert widespread environmental destruction in the next century, only a radical change in values can bring about the behavioral change needed to protect life on earth. As a result, calls for a new 'environmental or sustainable development ethic' have been growing. These calls have come recently from mainstream religious, political, and scientific organizations.

Some religious leaders have argued that only a truly religious transformation can bring about the needed shift in behavior; a cosmological paradigm shift which enables humans to see themselves as part of, rather than above, the web of life. They argue that such a change in vision, is necessary to allow the world and its plants and animals to become re-enchanted; to restore a sense of the sacred in nature that was lost during the industrialization period of human history.

In addition, many environmental organizations have called for a new environmental ethic. For instance, the World Conservation Union, has recently urged the adoption of a set of morally compelling principles to guide human action.⁴ If the world is going to develop a sustainable development ethic, the world will need the leadership and collaboration of artists, poets, scientists, and men and women concerned about the global environmental crisis. Most importantly, the developed world needs to learn from the wisdom of those cultures that have never lost their deep and sacred respect for life on earth.

The Need to Examine Sustainable Development Ethical Questions Embedded In Day-to Day Practices

There are several reasons, however, to be concerned about putting the world's hopes exclusively in the call for creation of a new sustainable ethic that will guide the day-to-day practices of human life.

First, such calls for a new sustainable ethic sometimes seem to assume that an ethic can be created by simply calling for its creation, without understanding how ethical positions arise out of existing social practices and needs or within existing ethical belief systems.⁵ For example, because any person struggling to survive is likely to be influenced in his or her view of 'right' or 'wrong' from the day-to-day forces against which he or she must struggle, no simple call for a sustainable living ethic is likely to be greatly influential until dire threats to survival are eliminated.

Second, Agenda 21 is expected to be largely implemented by national and local governments that translate the general principles of Agenda 21 into specific programs and laws. The most likely response of these governments is to assign these laws and programs to government agencies staffed largely by engineers, scientists, lawyers, economists, and other experts who are expected to implement laws and “manage” sustainability problems. Government experts will use the languages of science, economics, and law to frame the public policy questions that must be faced in implementing Agenda 21. Because a sustainable development ethic will surely create considerable conflict between those persons who are deriving a living from unsustainable practices and laws which limit or prohibit the unsustainable behavior, there will be even greater pressure on national political leaders to look to scientists and other experts to define which human behaviors or activities are unsustainable. In fact, evidence of this increasing need to rely on complex scientific, legal, and economic procedures and analyses is apparent in many sections of Agenda 21. For example, Agenda 21 expressly calls for the use of such complex scientific procedures as toxicological risk assessment as the appropriate tool for determining which hazardous substances are harmful, and calls for the use of biotechnology to solve food scarcity problems.

If the policy languages of science, economics, and law are not ethically neutral or if important ethical positions are often hidden in scientific, economic, and legal languages, it is critically important that the ethical dimensions of science, economics, and law be understood in implementing Agenda 21.

Science and Sustainable Development Ethics

In the last few decades scientists have been making great contributions to our understanding of global environmental problems. For instance, it is inconceivable that the developed world would have made as much progress on controlling water pollution if scientists did not warn us about the dangers posed by certain pollutants and devise treatment schemes that remove some of those pollutants. The world clearly needs to increase scientific understanding of threats to water pollution problems. However, the ethical limitations and implications of our scientific tools must be understood.

In day-to-day environmental decision-making, environmental protection controversies are often thought of as technical-instrumental problems. To solve such problems scientists or other technically trained personnel use scientific procedures to develop the “facts” about a particular environmental danger and describe measures that can be taken to prevent or remediate environmental degradation. For example, if water pollution is viewed primarily as a technical-instrumental problem, science needs to determine what is the ecological significance of the contamination to human and environmental receptors (a question of scientific fact) and if so, what steps can be taken to mitigate against any adverse environmental effects (an instrumental question of means). Since these questions are about “facts” and “means”, according to prevailing conventional wisdom, they are best answered by experts who use value-neutral scientific procedures as analytical tools to find answers.⁶

Conversely, environmental protection issues can be understood as problems that most fundamentally raise ethical questions, questions about what is the “right” thing to do. For example, which environmental amenities “should” we protect or what “should” we do in respect to the environment when the technical “facts” about consequences are uncertain? Under an ethical lens, the most important questions about water pollution might be: (1) What “should” we do about certain types of water pollution before science can specify consequences with certainty?; or, (2) What is this generation's duty to the future generations or non-human species to prevent degradation of water resources?

Of course, environmental problems usually raise both complex technical-instrumental questions and thorny ethical questions. However, if we allow technical-instrumental discourse to dominate our environmental and development decision-making discussions several consequences follow.

First, positions taken by decision-makers that are justified on scientific grounds but have actually been based on the values of the decision-makers appear to be compelled by “neutral” technical reasoning and therefore are not subject to public scrutiny. Thus, the values of those nations or institutions that command technical resources can determine the nature of action that needs to be taken and make it appear that this action is compelled by scientific reasoning. Because technical expertise is very expensive, only those that can afford to pay technical experts can participate in the public policy discourse. Therefore, if technical discourse is allowed to dominate public policy decisions, those who do not have large financial assets may be effectively disenfranchised from discussing matters that should be understood to be moral or political in nature.

Second, political action initiated to protect the environment before science can describe precise cause and effect relationships between a proposed action and its effect on the environment can be attacked as irrational because it is without a scientific basis that compels action. Because the Earth Summit has acknowledged that governments must be sensitive to the economic and developmental consequences of environmental decision-making, there is likely to be increased pressure on decision makers to withhold government environmental action that retards development in situations lacking a strong scientific factual basis. Therefore, if we let neutral scientific language dominate our discourses on sustainable living problems after the Earth Summit, we are likely to see less environmentally protective government action.

Although some environmental problems are well understood by scientists, many are not. Environmental decisions must often be made in situations of pervasive scientific uncertainty⁷. That is so because scientists must often rely on theoretical models of the way the world works to make environmental decisions. Because extreme degrees of complexity characterize ecological systems, attempts to quantitatively predict the consequences of many human activities on global, regional or local environmental systems or to model even the simplest of ecosystems have not met with success. Environmental models are fraught with uncertainty either because the mathematical relationship between “real-world” variables described in the model is not known or because the data needed to run or test the model is difficult or impossible to obtain. Environmental models therefore suffer from two kinds of uncertainty: (1) theoretical uncertainty, and (2) informational uncertainty. As a result environmental science, and in particular the field of ecology, is much, much softer than many people realize.

If the world waits until the scientific proof is in, the world is making an ethical judgement that favors the status quo. Because scientists are taught to be silent in absence of sound scientific proof, if there is urgent need to take action to prevent environmental destruction where scientific proof is not conclusive, scientific norms may be inconsistent with a ethical principles. Thus the scientific norm that a scientist refrain from speculation in the absence of proof may conflict with the public policy need to protect the environment for future generations.

Third, because scientific ways of looking at environmental issues are understood to describe the environment through “value-neutral” scientific methodology, scientific methods are understood to see the environment “objectively” without the distortion that comes from the biases of the analyst. Scientific discourse, therefore, being understood by many as value-free and objective, can unconsciously lead to the devaluation of environmental positions of those who don't share the same metaphysical mechanistic assumptions of the scientist or those who value the environment for more subjective reasons. For example, because there are no “objective” criteria for beauty and ugliness, someone who believes that the flow of a water fall should be maintained at its existing rate because of its beauty may not be represented in a discussion which is limited to “objective” scientific language. Therefore, if government officials limit future discussions on sustainable living problems to discussions about scientific “facts,” then those decision-makers may devalue the position of those who believe that environmental entities should be protected for reasons not cognizable in scientific calculations.

For these reasons, the ethical implications of our scientific discourses must be understood and integrated into sustainable development decision making. If scientific discourse is allowed to dominate the public policy discussions about environmental problems after the Earth Summit, there will be expanded opportunities for obstructive behavior for those who oppose government action.

Because scientists have been taught to exclude values discourse from their scientific endeavors, the twin problems of environment and development recognized by Agenda 21 ironically create pressures for greater use and reliance on tools that are usually understood to be “value-neutral” tools that have a built in tendency to see the world and its creatures as sets of mathematically described interacting forces. Therefore, although many argue that a shift in consciousness that re-enchants the world is necessary to survival of life on earth, the human race has managed to create problems that will most likely be described by tools that depend upon even greater demystification of the world. For this reason alone, it is imperative that the ethical implications and limitations of the scientific tools that will be used by decision makers to implement Agenda 21 are understood.

Law and Sustainable Development Ethics

How does the law fit into day-to-day environmental problem solving scheme? According to the model followed in much of the developed world, government agencies staffed largely by technical experts breaks down environmental problems into an “objective” technical problem and a “subjective” policy component.⁸ In developing the policy component the administrator looks at the guidance contained in the law and then applies the “objective” technical facts to the decision rule found in the law. In this way, government technicians apply scientifically derived “facts” to politically derived rules.

This analysis leads to the conclusion that the government must turn to the law to determine the applicable ethical rule to be applied to sustainability decision-making. A closer analysis of most environmental laws, however, reveals that the ethical rules contained in many environmental laws are notoriously vague. A relevant example in the United States is the National Environmental Policy Act or “NEPA.” NEPA clearly is law which articulates environmental policy goals which have a distinctly ethical character, because the goals of NEPA state that its purpose is to establish a harmonious relation between humans and the environment.⁹ NEPA is thus understood to be a law which incorporates an ethically based environmental approach to federal decision-making.

However, the exact nature of the environmental ethical approach embedded in NEPA is ambiguous because the goals also include words or phrases which seem to recognize the need to balance environmental concerns with the need to meet “social and economic requirements of present and future generations” and the requirement to use all “practical” means and measures to create and maintain conditions where man and nature can exist in productive harmony.

Because of this ambiguity, NEPA is capable of many interpretations. These include interpretations which assert that the NEPA requires that: (1) Environmental values take priority over economic values; (2) Environmental values should be considered and allocated efficiently with other values including economic considerations (that is, NEPA should be understood to correct market failures to include environmental values); and (3) NEPA forces technology and science to develop in appropriate ways so that there is no conflict between environmental protection and a high standard of living.¹⁰

It is therefore apparent that NEPA fails to answer some of the hard ethical questions that are posed by the potential conflict between human economic interests and environmental protection considerations and therefore does not create a clear prescriptive rule for the government to follow in applying the “facts” of any individual controversy and in making a decision. In addition, most environmental laws require a finding of environmental harm as a factual prerequisite before taking protective regulatory action.¹¹ When environmental science is uncertain about the environmental consequences of human action, insisting on high levels of scientific proof before government action may be taken is a prescriptive rule that puts the burden of proof on government decision-makers and privileges the status quo. Such a rule may prevent protective government action where there is a reasonable basis for concern but where science is uncertain about the consequences of certain human activities. The Water Pollution Control Act was passed in 1972 that required the states in the United States to develop effluent limitations developed from in stream water quality standards, if technology based standards are not sufficiently protective of in stream uses of the water. Now, 21 years later Pennsylvania and other states have yet to develop water quality based effluent limitations because the in stream models are in capable of withstanding legal attacks. The standard of proof that should be required of regulatory action is an ethical question, not a scientific question. If we let scientific standards dominate legal institutions we are making ethical choices that may be inconsistent with ethical choices legislators think they have established.

Economics and Sustainable Development Ethics

When government technical experts recognize that particular value questions have to be considered in environmental decision making, the values are usually discussed in terms of economic considerations, in terms of costs and benefits and efficient markets. Although economics, as social science, may be a valid attempt to describe and predict what will happen economically within a society if it chooses certain economic behaviors, many economists do not hesitate to make prescriptive statements about economic behavior. Many economists, for example, assert that the option that makes the most efficient use of resources ought to be the preferred option. Once an economist makes an “ought” statement, however, he or she is tacitly assuming some ethical position. When such recommendations are made, economists are choosing one ethical approach over others, and that approach is most often some form of utilitarianism. The underlying assumption of utilitarianism is that an option should be chosen that creates the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. Since an efficient market maximizes happiness by satisfying the greatest number of individual preferences, the economist usually asserts that the option which maximizes the efficiency of the market place is the “optimal” solution. This is a utilitarian formulation of the good.¹² It is a different formulation than other ethical formulations, and to the extent that the value assumption is not identified and remains hidden, the ethical basis for the final decision is never exposed, and other viable approaches are completely ignored.

The utilitarian approach raises additional ethical problems that cannot easily be answered from within a utilitarian system.¹³ A utilitarian, for instance, must decide which alternatives will be entertained in the utilitarian calculus, which consequences of a given action will be considered, whose assessments of harms and benefits will be allowed, and what time scale will be used in assessing those consequences. The utilitarian framework, therefore, often rests upon imprecise judgments independent of, and prior to, the utility calculus itself.

Utilitarian methodology, moreover, cannot easily accommodate the rights individuals may have either to be protected from certain pollutants or to be spared from death-threatening situations. Most contemporary philosophers hold that utilitarian approaches must be supplemented by other ethical approaches, such as those that stress such concepts as rights, justice, and due process as fundamental. The utilitarian approach often assumes that various questions can be reduced to a quantifiable amount. Quantification of environmental or health benefits, however, is often difficult and sometimes impossible. For instance, what is the value of human life? Even if the problem of quantification can be solved, utilitarianism is still incapable of answering how benefits or costs should be distributed among potential losers and winners.¹⁴ As a result, most commentators agree that a utilitarian analyses must be supplemented by concepts of distributive justice.

Moreover, utilitarian approaches also usually make human interests, as opposed to plants and animal interests, the center of value. Such an approach may be inconsistent with ethical systems which strive to value plants and animals without regard to their use to humans.

Although more sophisticated utilitarian approaches are capable of dealing with some of the problems mentioned above, all too frequently the value analysis one actually finds in the environmental public policy debates are oversimplified utilitarian calculations that more sophisticated utilitarians would likely reject.

Conclusion

Most of the nations at the Earth Summit appear to have agreed that international action is urgently needed to diminish the extraordinarily serious threats entailed by various global environmental problems including threats to water resources. Because the poverty of the developing world must be tackled to solve these global environmental problems, international action must include assistance to the developing world so that it may achieve environmentally sustainable development. The nations of the earth are now faced with developing laws, treaties, and programs that will reconcile the sometimes competing objectives of environmental protection and development. If the nations of the earth are going to solve these problems, we must learn to integrate ethical discourse into the policy languages of science, law and economics.

Reference Notes

2. American Bar Association, Environmental Law, Vol. 11, No. 4, Summer 1992.

3. For a helpful summary of these documents see. Environmental Law, supra; also see, IOS Press, Environmental Law and Policy. August 1992.

4. The World Conservation Union, Caring for the Earth, (Gland. Switzerland, 1991)

5. For an excellent discussion of the practice bound nature of ethics, see, Grove-White and Szerszynski, Getting Behind Environmental Ethics, 1 Environmental Values, 285.

6. Many philosophers of science would argue that science can never be “value-free” for several reasons including the fact that a scientist must always make choices of what to study.

7. For a discussion of scientific uncertainty in environmental decision-making see, J. Dryzek, Rational Ecology, (New York, Basil Blackwell, 1987)

8. See, generally, D. Brown, Ethics, Science and Environmental Regulation, 9 Envtl. Ethics 331 (1987).

9. Mark Sagoff, “ NEPA: Ethics, Economics, and Science in Environmental Law” in Law of Environmental Protection, Sheldon Novick, Ed. (New York, Clark Boardman Co. Ltd., 1987)

10. Id. p. 9-50 to 9-51.

11. Id.

12. For a discussion of economic theory and utilitarian ethics see Mark Sagoff, “At The Shrine of Our Lady of Fatima or Why Political Questions Are Not All Economic,” Arizona Law Review 23 (1981): 1283-98, and “Economic Theory and Environmental Law,” Michigan Law Review 79 (1981): 1393-419.

13. See Alasdair MacIntyre, “Utilitarianism and Cost/Benefit Analysis: An Essay on the Relevance of Moral Philosophy to Bureaucratic Theory,” in K. M. Sayre, et al., Values in the Electric Power Industry (Noire Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1977).

14. See David Harrison, Jr., and Paul R. Partner, “Who Loses From Reform of Environmental Regulation,” in Wesley A. Magat, ed., Reform of Environmental Regulation (Cambridge, Mass.: Ballinger Publishing, 1982).

Negotiating Collaborative Solutions to Disputes Over Water Resources

Barbara Gray¹

¹ Center for Research in Conflict and Negotiation, The Pennsylvania State University, 408 Beam Business Administration Building, University Park, PA 16802, USA. Phone (814) 865-0197

Considerable evidence from the practice of alternative dispute resolution creates a basis for some realistic optimism.

Evidence of successful collaborative efforts to address sticky, adversarial, environmental issues of all kinds is mounting daily - clearly not fast enough to address all the problems-but nonetheless, convincingly. While much of the experience is from the U.S. (Bingham, 1986; Crowfoot & Wondolleck, 1988; Clark, Bingham & Orenstein, 1991), evidence of successful environmental dispute resolution addressing a wide range of environmental disputes, including those over water rights, water conservation, and water pollution, is mounting from all four quadrants of the earth (Trolldalen, 1992; Synergos, 1993).

Collaborative solutions involve all groups with a stake in the problem in the process of resolving the dispute. Gray (1989, p. 11) identified five features of collaboration. They include: (1) interdependent stakeholders, (2) constructive management of differences among the parties, (3) joint ownership of decisions, (4) collective responsibility for carrying out the agreements, and (5) emergent decisions. Thus, collaborating represents a process of identifying and solving problems collectively by the parties involved. This, however, may prove to be extremely problematic since disputes over water resources are often protracted and bitter, pitting long-standing adversaries against each other. Moreover, water disputes typically involve multiple stakeholders-ranging from farmers, ranchers, and fishing interests, to government agencies, to manufacturing and natural resource industries, to environmental interest groups and non-governmental organizations concerned about economic development. These groups often have wide-ranging agenda that, taken collectively, complexity decision making (dark et al., 1991). Additionally, they often involve significant technical challenges that rival the difficulties of bringing warring parties to the table. Thus, launching a collaborative process to generate integrative solutions to satisfy the needs of diverse stakeholders requires considerable finesse and skill.

Theoretically, collaborating occurs in three phases. The first of these has been called problem setting (McCann, 1983; Gray, 1989) because one of the principle tasks is to collectively define the problem to be solved and the scope at which it will be addressed. Table 1 identifies several issues that constitute this first phase of collaborating.

Organizing a forum within which stakeholders can seek a collaborative solution is a major task of the problem setting phase for those who initiate a collaboration. Parties who have a stake need to be identified and persuaded to participate in a collaborative process (as opposed to relying on litigation or protest or other political tactics) to solve the problem. These and other difficult issues arise and must be addressed before the parties can begin to negotiate about possible solutions to the problem. In international disputes, additional problem setting issues revolve around jurisdictional issues such as sovereignty and property rights for the global commons (Golich & Young, 1993; Soros, 1986; Sebenius, 1992).

Another critical issue in problem setting is who will serve as a convener for the collaboration (Gray, 1989). The convener may be, but need not be, a stakeholder in the problem. The task of the convener is to identity and bring all the legitimate stakeholders to the negotiating table. This requires that the convener have some convening power, or clout - that is, the ability to induce the participation of others. Wood and Gray (1991, p. 152) identified four dominant modes of convening. These differ according to the convener's influence (whether it is formal or informal) and the type of intervention strategy they employ (responsive or proactive). Responsive conveners initiate the collaboration at the request of certain stakeholders. Proactive conveners attempt to organize the stakeholders on their own initiative. See Figure 1. Experiences with different forms of convening will be described further below under what we have learned.

Figure 1. Dominant Mode and Central Attribute of Conveners

		Convener Has What Type of Influence:
		Formal	Informal
Source of Intervention into the Problem Domain	Requested by Stakeholders (Responsive)	Legitimation	Facilitation
		Convener is perceived as fair.	Convener is trusted.
	Initiated by Convener (Proactive)	Mandate	Persuasion
		Convener is powerful.	Convener is credible.

The second phase of collaborating is called direction setting. During the direction setting phase, negotiations over the substantive problem take place. This phase involves identification of all the parties interests, search for common interests, generation of alternative solutions, and reaching agreement on one. Table 2 outlines the critical issues that arise during direction setting. Typically, in environmental disputes, it becomes necessary to deal with highly technical, frequently controversial information (about expected levels of risk or projected mitigation effects). In these cases it may be necessary for participants to make joint site visits to ensure common understanding of the issues. Joint data collection efforts of this type have proven to be extremely useful in broadening the perspectives of each side and in building rapport among the parties (Gray, 1989; Gray, 1993). When technical issues are particularly sophisticated, it may be necessary to contract with a neutral expert or convene a panel of experts to help the collaborative partners interpret the scientific information.

The final phase, implementation, begins as soon as the agreement is reached. Often times, what appears to be a deal, needs to be modified or amended to satisfy the negotiator's constituents or because unexpected events occur after the deal has been struck. Additionally, amassing the necessary resources and personnel to carry out the agreements may take some time and require the creation of a new governance mechanism to implement or monitor the agreement. Table 3 indicates a range of issues that may need to be addressed during the implementation phase.

Collaboration in Action

The number of examples of successful collaborations to address water-related problems is growing. These can be classified by the nature of the conflict or problem:

Threats to the natural environment. Disputes of this type arise because some stakeholders expressed concern that others' actions are creating damage to the ecosystem. One example of a collaborative that successful dealt with this problem is the Mono Lake Group. The collaboration was initiated after a group of environmentalists (the Mono Lake Committee) sued the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power because of environmental damage to a reservoir supplying water to the city of Los Angeles. A collaboration was convened to reach agreement on future issues affecting the lake. The stakeholders in this project included the L.A. Department of Water and Power, the Mono Lake Committee, the L.A. City Council and Mayor, the U.S. Forest Service, the county supervisors, and the California Department of Water Resources. Technical assistance was provided by the Environmental Defense Fund. Among the agreements reached by the group is the decision not to solve their problems by shifting ecosystem damage to other locations. Issues under consideration included recycling and reimbursement strategies for water conservation.

A major controversy over construction of a hydroelectric dam and highway through the Mexican rainforest, Chimalapas, in southern Mexico, was resolved through a collaborative initiative known as the Chimalapas Coalition. The coalition included the states of Oaxaca and Chiapas (where the rainforest is located), the federal legislature and several ministries, environmental NGO's, human rights groups, and international organizations. The convening role was performed by Synergos Institute, a U.S.-based partnership-building group, who enlisted participation of groups reluctant to join the coalition. Synergos also served as a bridge to organize and facilitate discussions among groups who had no formal relationships, secure outside funding to assist in organizing indigenous peoples (the Campesinos) to participate and creation of a structure for the Coalition.

The Coalition has assumed a variety of organizational forms over the past four years, ranging from a tightly organized formal partnership to a loosely-coupled affiliation of independent groups (Synergos, 1993, p. 8). The Coalition's efforts have produced several positive outcomes: (1) resolution of long-standing land tenure disputes, (2) community plans for use and conservation of the forest, (3) state government commitment to upgrade public works and improve services to communities, (4) agreement not to build the hydroelectric dam and highway, (5) creation of a loan fund for small projects, and (6) plans for a campesino-controlled biosphere reserve within the rain forest.

Water Allocation. A collaboration to deal with a dispute over redirecting the flow of river water to the dried up Umatilla River in Oregon was convened by one of the stakeholders, the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation. The CTUIR persuaded environmentalists and state officials to seek an informal solution to the water allocation issues rather than formally stall a $100 million water management project on the Columbia River. The environmentalists and fishing interests were challenging state and federal agencies for failure to enforce existing water laws. With the help of a mediator from Confluence Northwest and a water law expert an agreement was reached that “provides for more water in the Umatilla River by exchanging Columbia River water for irrigation water currently taken directly from the Umatilla or reservoirs in the basin” (Consensus, 1992, p. 4).

Local Control of Water Resources. Another example of collaboration resulted in the transfer of oversight and maintenance responsibility for the management of a large-scale irrigation system from central government authorities to local farmers in Sumatra, Indonesia. A collaborative partnership among NGO's, government agencies, water users' associations, universities and international donors made this local empowerment effort possible (Synergos Institute, 1993).

Generating Regulations. One form of collaboration that is embedded within traditional regulatory apparatus is regulatory negotiation or negotiated rulemaking. Negotiated rulemaking brings together parties with a direct interest in a specific rule about to be promulgated by a government agency. The agency serves as convener. The parties assay the relative merits of alternative rules until they reach agreement on a mutually acceptable version that is then published for review and comment. Parties are offered the opportunity to review and sign off on the final version which the agency then promulgates. Two such processes illustrate how negotiated rulemaking can be used to address water disputes.

In Idaho a water antidegradation policy was hopelessly stalemated after two legislative efforts had received vetoes from two different governors. After the second attempt the governor invited industry and environmentalist opponents to try mediation. Each group was asked to prepare draft regulation that the Governor put forward. Mediation was intended to produce a compromise agreement that would then be used as the basis for detailed regulations and legislation. This collaboration was effectively mandated by the governor as he threatened to adopt the opposing sides draft regulations if the other did not participate. With mediation assistance from the Northwest Renewable Resources Center, an agreement was reached among the participating parties including: the Idaho Mining Association, the Idaho Farm Bureau, Intermountain Forest Industry Association, Idaho Conservation League, Idaho Sportsman's Coalition, The Wilderness Society, and the Nez Perce Tribe.

An eight state effort to cleanup the Great Lakes is also using regulatory negotiation. Under the auspices of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, standards are being set for the regulation of 140 pollutants found in the lakes.

Conclusion

The above listing of cases is certainly not exhaustive, but it serves to illustrate the range of water issues that lend themselves to solution through collaborative methods. Key to the process is selection of a convener who can organize the participants and bound the scope of the problem so that successful resolution is within reach. In the cases above, the projects differed in the type of convening mechanism. These are mapped in Figure 2. In international disputes that role may often best be played by a neutral nation state or by the United Nations or by a consortium of international organizations. For example, Trolldalen (1992) has suggested that the Global Environment Facility (GEF), a tripartite agreement between the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), and the World Bank, may be an appropriate agency for conflict resolution.

Figure 2. Dominant Mode and Central Attribute of Conveners

		Convener Has What Type of Influence:
		Formal	Informal
Source of Intervention into the Problem Domain	Requested by Stakeholders	Legitimation	Facilitation
		Mono Lake Group	Chimalapas Coalition Indonesian Irrigation
	Initiated by Convener	Mandate	Persuasion
		Idaho Water Degradation Policy	Umatilla River Dispute

Additionally, all but one of the processes described above relied on the assistance of a neutral mediator or bridging agency who ensured that a constructive process of dispute resolution was employed. Often this role is played by both a “process” and a “technical” expert to ensure that both the feasibility of the technical solutions and the dynamics of the negotiations are carefully attended to.

Collaboration is clearly not a panacea for dealing with the complex issues involved in water management, particularly in international settings. However, it does offer an alternative and implementable vision for addressing environmental resource disputes that otherwise will likely result in protracted adversarial squabbles and failure to evolve solutions that promote a sustainable planetary future. If we don't try collaboration, do we have another alternative?

References

Bingham, G. 1986. Resolving Environmental Disputes: A decade of experience. Washington, D.C.: Conservation Foundation.

Bosso, C.J. 1988. Transforming Adversaries into Collaborators. Policy Sciences, 21, 3-21.

Clark, E.H., Bingham, G. & Orenstein, S.G. 1991. Resolving Water Disputes: Obstacles and Opportunities. Resolve, No. 23, 1, 3-7.

Consensus. 1992. Enough Water for People, Crops and Fish, July, No. 15, pp. 1, 4.

Consensus. 1992. “Reg Neg” part of Great Lakes clean up. July, No. 15, pp. 1-2.

Forman, S.C. 1989. There are No Interjurisdictional Panaceas. National Civic Review, 78 (1), 17-24.

Golich, V.L. & Young, T.F. 1993. Resolution of the United States-Canadian Conflict Over Acid Rain Controls. Journal of Environment and Development, 2, (1), 63-110.

Gray, B. 1989. Collaborating: Finding common ground for multiparty problems. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1989.

Gray, 1993. Business, Government and Communities as Partners in Resolving Environmental Disputes. Paper presented at the conference, “Making Collaboration Happen”, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, Scotland, June 21-24, 1993.

Gray, B. & Hay, T.M. 1985. Political Limits to Interorganizational Consensus and Change. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 22, (2), 95-112.

McCann, J. 1983. Design Guidelines for Social Problem-Solving Interventions. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 19, 177-189.

Northwest Renewable Resources Center Newsletter. 1988. Idaho Water Antidegradation Successfully Mediated. 4 (2), 1-2.

Sebenius, J.K. 1992. Challenging Conventional Explanations of International Cooperation: Negotiation analysis and the case of epistemic communities. International Organization, 46 (1), 332.

Soros, M. 1986. Beyond Sovereignty: The challenge of global policy. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.

Synergos Institute. 1993. Working Together to Overcome Poverty: Report of activities. pp. 7-9.

Trolldalen, J.M. 1992. International Environmental Conflict Resolution. Washington, D.C.: NIDR.

United Nations Environment Program (UNEP). 1989. Environmental Perspectives to the Year 2000 and Beyond. Narobi.

WCED. 1987. Our Common Future. Oxford University Press.

Wood, D.J. & Gray, B. 1991. Toward a Comprehensive Theory of Collaboration. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 27 (2), 139-162.

Table 1

Phase 1: Problem-Setting

Goal: Stakeholders Agree to Talk about the Issues

ISSUE	QUESTION	DESCRIPTION
Common Definition of the Problem	“What is the problem?”	Need agreement that a community issue causes problems important enough to collaborate. The problem must be common to several stakeholders.
Commitment to Collaborate	“What's in it for me?”	Stakeholders fed that collaborating will solve their own problems. Need to be dissatisfied with current conditions. Shared values are key.
Identification of Stakeholders	“Who should participate?”	An inclusive process that includes multiple stakeholders so the problems can be understood.
Legitimacy of Stakeholders	“Who has the right and capability to participate?”	Not only expertise but also power relationships important.
Leader's Characteristics	“Do I trust and respect the leader - the organization and the person?”	Collaborative leadership is key to success. Stakeholders need to perceive the leader as unbiased.
Identification of Resources	“How can we fund the planning process?”	Funds from government or foundations may be needed for less well-off organizations.

Inskip (1993). Adapted from Gray (1989)

Phase 2: Direction-setting

Goal: Negotiating

STEPS	QUESTION	ISSUES
Establishing Ground Rules	“What is acceptable and unacceptable behaviour?”	Gives stakeholders a sense of fair process and equity of power.
Agenda-setting	“What are the substantive issues we need to examine and decide?”	Stakeholders' different motivations for joining mean that establishing a common agenda may be difficult.
Organizing Subgroups	“Do we need to break into smaller groups to carry out our work?”	Large plenary committees need to be broken into smaller working groups.
Joint Information Search	“Do we really understand the other side of this negotiation?”	Different sets of information and/or not enough information to make a judgement. Joint search can help find common basis and sort out which are common, opposing or different.
Exploring Options	“What are all the possible options to solving our problems?”	Multiple interests mean that multiple options need to be considered before closure. Stakeholders' own interests are important.
Reaching Agreement and Closing the Deal	“Are we committed to going ahead on one option or a package of options?”	Stakeholders can agree on recommendations for a formal organization or a joint voluntary course of action.

Inskip (1993). Adapted from Gray (1989).

Phase 3: Implementation

Goal: Systematic Management of Interorganizational Relations

STEPS	QUESTIONS	ISSUES
Dealing with Constituencies	“How do we persuade our constituencies that this was the best deal we could negotiate?”	Stakeholders need time to make sure that their constituents understand the tradeoffs and support the agreement.
Building External Support	“How do we insure that organizations that will implement are onside?”	A concern that senior officials in Government or business have not been briefed fully.
Structuring	“Do we need a formal organization to fulfill our agreement?”	Voluntary efforts can work. A formal organization may be needed to coordinate long-term collaboration.
Monitoring the Agreement and Ensuring Compliance	“How do we figure out assets, legal obligations and compliance with contracts?”	Time for lawyers and possibly more legal/financial negotiations.

Inskip (1993). Adapted from Gray (1989).

Rio San Juan River Basin: A Case of Conflict in Management of a Bi-National Basin

Marco A. González¹

¹ Secretary General, Nicaraguan Foundation for Sustainable Development (FUNDESOS), Apartado Postal 2313, Managua, Nicaragua

ABSTRACT

The presentation will report on the progress of talks relating to the dispute on the Rio San Juan Basin. Prior to the Dialogue, a special meeting will be held at the North-South Center at the University of Miami where parties from Nicaragua and Costa Rica will meet to discuss the water quality degradation within the Rio San Juan River Basin.

The goal of these talks is to present a bi-lateral or bi-national view of the San Juan River Basin management and protection. It is very important since historically the political, institutional and legal development of Costa Rica and Nicaragua have been quite different. The results of those developments are different levels of exploitation of the river basin and different legal rules regulating the use and protection of the basin.

Though many efforts have been made during the past decade to protect the border areas in the bi-national coordinating effort, the San Juan River Basin which practically covers all of those protected areas has not been the object of significant bi-national regulation. The talks include representatives of both governments and scholars and the efforts that have been made to find a way to control the water quality in the Rio San Juan Basin. Particular emphasis will be given to the role of the Central American Commission on the Environment and the Bi-National Commission on International Systems for Protecting Areas for Peace.

Water Quality as a Top Priority for the U.N. Commission on Sustainable Development

Steven J. Parcells¹ and Deborah Moore²

¹ International Water Specialist, National Audubon Society, 666 Pennsylvania Avenue, SE, Washington, DC 20818, USA

² Staff Scientist, Environmental Defense Fund, 5655 College Avenue, Oakland, California 94618, USA

In addition to such general procedures, the CSD should make strategic and concrete progress towards solving a few key sectoral problems in the short-term as a hallmark of Sustainable development. By facilitating such progress the CSD will gain credibility among the international community. What follows are brief points for why water quality should be one of the CSD's priorities, what some of the problems are, and how to solve the problems, and what the CSD can do to help.

1. Make water quality a top short-term priority for CSD

Compared to other urgent international environmental issues where diplomacy, avoiding the appearance of environmental imperialism, and differing priorities among developing and industrialized countries makes for turbulent and tricky negotiations, water quality is something that everybody can agree on. And in many areas of the world, it's a relatively easy problem to fix.

· Safe drinking water and proper sanitation (e.g. primary sewage treatment) are basic human needs. Both developing and industrialized countries share concerns over human health, disease, and children's welfare. Contamination of water is an immediate, life-threatening, industry-limiting, mainly localized problem.

· Many U.N. agencies, like UNICEF, PROWESS, and HABITAT, have already shown that simple, low-cost technologies can make an enormous difference in treating waste and waste water, particularly in rural areas. There are many new technologies available for conserving water (thereby reducing the volume of waste needing treatment) and treating wastewater. Funding has been a limiting factor.

· Significant gains could be made in the near term, thereby illustrating that the CSD has a useful purpose.

· More than 1 billion people lack access to adequate and safe water supplies, while 1.7 billion (almost one-third of the world's population!) lack adequate sanitation services.

· Large amounts of sewage are untreated; in Latin America 98% of sewage is not treated. As a result contaminated water supplies cause approximately 80% of diseases in the developing world. Diarrhea kills 4-5 million children per year.

· Fisheries, which provide 23% of the world's protein sources, are declining worldwide (both freshwater and ocean) due to water pollution, as well as from the loss of rivers and wetlands from damming, diking, draining, and deforesting activities.

· The economic and productivity costs are substantial. Cholera epidemics reduce agricultural exports and tourism (estimated $1 billion loss in 10 weeks of cholera scare in Peru). In Jakarta, Indonesia, $50 million is spent by households to boil water, in turn using large amounts of energy as well. For poor people in Bangladesh and Peru, the cost of boiling water is between 11 % and 29% of family income.

· Despite large expenditures on water-related projects by institutions like the World Bank, which has spent a cumulative total of about $35 billion, these problems continue to persist. Investments in water supply and sanitation were extremely inadequate throughout the 1980s; public investment was about 0.5% of developing countries' GDP for the decade.

· More financial resources, in “smaller bundles” are needed to invest in sewage collection and treatment. “Smaller bundles” means that huge World Bank loans and credits are not the only answer to this problem. In fact, UNICEF has estimated that 80% of the world's unserved could be provided services for one-third the cost of conventional approaches using low-tech, low-cost technologies.

· Mechanisms to mobilize private and community investment in water supply, sewerage, and sanitation should be promoted, as well as financial accountability of water utilities and disincentives for pollution like the “polluter pays” principle.

· There are numerous new, low-cost, clean technologies for waste water treatment and water conservation that are emerging that need to be transferred to developing countries. Governments should develop national policies, building codes, and appliance, fixture, and manufacturing regulations to promote low-water-using, clean technologies.

· There are innovative sanitation, hygiene, and public health programs being used to provide community-based health care at low-cost with high returns, such as de-centralized, local community health agents that provide education in nutrition, hygiene, health, and sanitation.

· Water conservation, particularly in urban areas, has the dual benefit of reducing per capita water use, reducing energy needs to produce hot water, and reducing the volume of wastewater needing treatment. Greater investments in municipal, domestic, industrial, and irrigation water conservation and efficiency improvements are required from local, national, and international funding sources.

· Multi-lateral development banks, bi-lateral agencies, and U.N. Agencies need to make water supply and sanitation a high priority in their budgets. Yet, they should invest far more in low-cost, de-centralized, community-based sanitation programs than in capital- and resource-intensive, high-tech tertiary treatment plants are large dams.

· NGOs, private voluntary organizations, local governments, and for-profit and non-profit businesses should be the primary providers and disseminators of these investments, projects, and educational programs.

· Convene a Working Group on Global Water Issues, which would include the major players such as the World Bank, the regional development banks, UNDP, UNEP, UNICEF, WHO, WMO, GEF, NGOs, and other knowledgeable people.

· Develop, in conjunction with other international agencies, governments, NGOs, etc., water quality goals, such as tripling the coverage of primary sewage treatment by 2000.

· Develop guidelines for development assistance to achieve water supply and water quality goals so that the investments of the MDBs, UNDP, GEF and UNICEF, bi-lateral aid agencies, etc. are efficient, socially acceptable and environmentally sound. Guidelines should include a focus on water conservation and re-use before development of new supplies, extending services to the un-served first, preventing pollution through source reduction, determining the community's desired level of service, and making pollution data available to the public.

· Make water quality improvements a strategic issue that deserves top budget priority in UN agencies, multi-lateral and bi-lateral aid institutions, and national programs. Only 1/5 of World Bank lending for water and sewerage projects is spent on sewerage and sanitation components. Governments should be encouraged to shift new loans, credits, and grants away from large-scale infrastructure projects like dams towards water conservation and re-use, rural water supply and sanitation, and wastewater treatment.

· Implement Chapter 18 of Agenda 21, relying on national reports (as required by Agenda 21), Country Environmental Action Plans (as required by the World Bank), Regional Strategy papers of UN agencies and MDBs, and other relevant sources, to develop a coherent framework and list of priorities in the water sector, such as:

- the World Bank's forthcoming Water Resources Management Policy, which emphasizes water conservation and demand management;

- the World Bank/UNDP partnership to develop a guide on capacity building in the water sector;

- UNICEF's community-based water supply programs;

- the Organization of American States' InterAmerican Dialogue on Water Management to build a network of experts, data, and policies;

- local government and community-based programs for public health, like Viva Crianca in the state of Ceara, Brazil (winner of the 1993 UNICEF Maurice Pate Award); and

- NGO projects to provide low-cost, small-scale drinking water supplies in rural areas, such as the village ponds built by Utthan Mahiti in India's arid Gujarat state.

The World Bank - Water Resources Management Policy

Francois-Marie Patorni¹

¹ Principal Water Resources Management Specialist, Economic Development Institute of the World Bank, 1818 H Street, NW, Room M-7043, Washington, DC 20433, USA

ABSTRACT

The World Bank, from its early days, has had a very active assistance program for water resources management. By the end of 1991, the Bank had lent over US$ 34 billion for water operations. Projections for the next five years indicate that about US$ 19 billion will be lent for water resources investments, in close to 200 projects. While this is a significant portion of Bank operations, it is only a small fraction of developing countries' projected investment needs in the sector, which may total US$ 700-800 billion for the next decade.

Countries are now faced with increasing difficulties in meeting the demand for cheap, clean and reliable water supplies, because of fragmented management, overreliance on government agencies, and neglect of pricing, participation, and the environment. A new approach is called for, one that recognizes that water is both a basic need and a scarce economic resource.

This approach is set out in the Bank's Water Resources Management Policy Paper, which was approved by the Bank's Board of Directors in May 1993. The paper seeks to balance, in particular, two fundamental considerations:

· the need for a holistic management approach that gives due weight to longer term factors and to protecting the ecosystem, and

· the advantages of relying more on markets, pricing, and decentralized management to improve the allocation of water among competing uses.

In the process of developing its policy, the Bank engaged in a wide ranging consultation with borrowing countries, international agencies, and NGOs. Through this process, the Bank benefitted from many insights provided by knowledgeable sources.

The main features of the policy are:

· development of a comprehensive analytical framework for water resources management;

· greater emphasis on incentives, pricing, demand management, and cost recovery;

· establishment of strong legal and regulatory frameworks;

· decentralization of water services delivery while at the same time establishing coordination mechanisms;

· promotion of wider participation by stakeholders;

· greater attention to the protection, enhancement, and restoration of water quality and water dependent eco-systems;

· priority to the provision of adequate water and sanitation services for the poor.

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT INSTITUTE OF THE WORLD BANK (EDI) TRAINING STRATEGY IN THE WATER SECTOR (FY 94-96)

Water is essential to all human activities. However, in the years to come, water shortages and pollution are likely to cause extreme hardship in the poorer countries, national and international conflicts, and practically irreversible damage to the environment. In many parts of the world, this has already occurred.

There is a widespread consensus that, to address the complex and multi-disciplinary issues associated with the water sector, (a) water management should be approached in a comprehensive inter-sectoral manner, integrating the whole set of policy, institutional, economic, financial, technical, environmental and social dimensions, so as to plan, develop and operate water systems in a sustainable manner, (b) capacity building activities should be undertaken to increase the capacity of policy makers, decision makers and managers to design and implement sustainable policies and programs of action for efficient and comprehensive management of the water sector, and (c) human resources development, including making people aware of issues and of approaches to resolve them, and developing a cadre of trained professionals, is a cornerstone for capacity building.

The basic objective of EDI's strategy in the water sector is to increase the capacity of people who make or influence policies, to help them design and implement sustainable policies and programs of action to manage the water sector in their countries. EDI pursues this objective by (a) designing and implementing national and regional programs, including seminars covering the whole range of water sector issues, and assisting national institutions to establish continuing training programs, (b) helping to create and operate international networks amongst training and related institutions to stimulate contacts among members, and (c) launching regional programs to strengthen water training institutions.

The above capacity building activities are designed and carried out in partnership with the concerned institutions and individuals in the Bank's member countries, and with external multilateral and bilateral agencies. In order to achieve lasting effects, activities should continue during several years, and be progressively taken over by the concerned countries.

Elements of a typical national program include: (a) a series of seminars, prepared and implemented in collaboration with a national partner institution and a cross-section of stakeholders. The seminars would use as guiding themes the main concepts included in the World Bank's Water Resources Management Policy Paper and in Regional Strategy Papers, and themes identified by the participants during the preparation of each of the seminars; and (b) a program of assistance to the partner institution.

For further information, please contact:

Francois-Marie Patorni, Principal Water Resources Management Specialist
Economic Development Institute, The World Bank, 1818 H Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20433, USA - Tel.: (202) 473 6265, Fax: (202) 676 0978

The Issue of Equity in International Environmental Negotiations: The Perspective of Developing Countries

Diana Ponce-Nava¹

¹ Environmental Lawyer, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Prol. De Angelina 10, (Entre P.L. Ogazon y Rio San Angel), Col. Guadalupe, México DF, México

Probably the most important result of the efforts of the past twenty years is understanding that the earth is not an infinite place or source of goods, but rather a very limited place, and that the resources stored in the planet may be exhausted. This understanding has taken on a feeling of a threat: if we do not find solutions, something bad is going to happen in the future or maybe even in the present. The concepts of the extent to which the global ecosystem components are linked, and the understanding that the global ecosystem is adjusted, together we have changed our approach to solutions.

This is one of the first times that the international community has understood that certain problems need a global solution. Few cases in the past have brought countries together politically, to try to solve a problem they agreed global. For example, in the nuclear arms race case, the feeling of global threat was never stronger than the feeling of national security held by the few countries that owned all the nuclear arms; so, a global solution was not achieved. Another case was the Law of the Sea Convention negotiations, in which one component of earth's ecosystem was certainly viewed from a global perspective. A global understanding of the management of the seas was attempted, but, after ten years, this convention still has not entered into force, for various reasons, indicating that the global understanding of the oceans' role within earth's ecosystem did not prevail.

Addressing environmental problems may be the first time industrialized countries have wanted something really bad. They realize that they all need to do something about the environment. For developing and middle-income countries, too, this is the first recognition of potential harm if they follow the same development patters the industrialized countries have followed for the past 150 years. The realization of the need to find a global solution has taken place in the latest three or four years. There are about fifteen international meetings per month on various international global issues. International environmental law is being developed as we speak.

An issue the international community has understood is the grave extent of global deterioration of the environment and the need to repair it. We are not talking about deterioration that may happen in the future. Environmental deterioration is already harming communities and ecosystems. Something must be done.

To agree on what has to be done by whom, we call upon the principle of equity. In the last four years, participating in international negotiations, I have heard six different conceptions of the equity principle. It is a difficult concept, how you define it?. I have taken the task of writing down every time a country offers a different definition of equity, and I want to share the results with you. Although I will put forward questions and not solutions, the underlying purpose in this definition of equity is finding the criteria for distributing the costs of global environmental protection, whether for purposes of mitigation, adaptation, or compensation.

One concept of equity frequently utilized is that we must understand the historical responsibility of countries in the present situation of global deterioration. This concept immediately puts the burden on developed countries. For the last 150 years, their industrializing processes have irrationally, maybe even irresponsibly, used natural resources. This has made possible their present standards of living, twenty times higher that the average standard of living in developing countries. Therefore, an equitable response dictates that these rich countries who have run upon the bill, pay the costs of repairing the global environmental deterioration.

There has been also mention of “present responsibility”. Some delegates in negotiations say that we do not have to talk about historical responsibility, but simply by speaking of present responsibility we have a hint of who is causing the problem. Today, in 1993, any ordinary citizen of a developed country consumes twenty times more of everything than an ordinary citizen of a developing country. So, those who have the better standards of living at present should pay for them. This input could be used to protect the environment.

Another idea related to responsibility emerges with the concept of liability. In Spanish, responsibility means both responsibility and liability. But in the English language, there is quite a distinction between responsibility and liability. This is why liability has to be mentioned. Liability in Anglo-Saxon law brings in the element of intention or negligence, an element of the torts system of law. So, in this case an equitable response is that whenever environmental damage is proved, those who are liable should pay for it. We now have listed three different concepts to support the definition of equity.

Another criterion for defining equity states that resources of the world should be distributed in an equal manner. These global resources are defined as “global commons”, or a common heritage of mankind. Many developing countries, who possess most of the earth's natural resources, react to this concept. This is true with Mexico. In recent negotiations regarding biological diversity protection, the concept of common heritage was brought up. The response was in effect: “This is not a common heritage of mankind; it is a heritage of the Mexicans, both present and future generations. We are not ready to give away these resources, which, according to the principle of sovereignty over natural resources, belong to the Mexican nation”. A similar response was given by the Brazilians when it was said that the Amazonian forest was a common heritage of mankind. Furthermore, a similar response came from such countries as Malaysia, India and China.

The concept of equal distribution of the global commons gives rise to discussion of the intergeneration equity concept, which states that present generations are not absolutely free to do anything they want with present natural resources. They must, in justice, protect those resources for future generations. Therefore, equity is defined as an equitable distribution of resources between present and future generations. Again, the political response is why should a Brazilian or Indian Community stop cutting trees for fields to allow future generations of Canadians or Norwegians to live better? The Brazilians of Indians want to live better today, and they have basic needs.

When debating about present and future elements of intergenerational equity, another element is encompassed: what about what past generations did? We see again the historical element brought onto the table. Past generations undertook certain patterns of development that allowed present generations, in some areas of the world, to have excellent standards of living. The question follows: Why do not share what past generations did, among present generations? This concept is also called intragenerational equity. It takes the stance that we cannot talk only about equal distribution between present and future generations; we must also talk about equal distribution among present generations.

A proposal has been put forth in several negotiations that we should achieve a convergence at a common per capita level of consumption through a treaty, establishing international legal standards. To achieve this common per capita level of consumption of a given resource, we must take into account basic needs. What are the basic needs that any human being must satisfy to be considered living decently? Here, many sociological arguments come into play, because the basic needs for a warm country are rather different from basic needs for a cold country. The basic needs for a fishery community are very different from the basic needs of a forest dwelling community.

Another criterion for defining equity is “preserving the status quo”. In Anglo-Saxon law, this is known as “adverse rights” “squatters rights”, or “appropriation rights”. It is a principle known in Roman law as “first in time, first in right”, or “first come, first served”. In this sense, it is questionable whether such rights can be applied to pollution rights. Should a country that has achieved certain pollution levels have the right to maintain those pollution levels? There is a precedent in that respect in international law. Some specialists consider this principle to be the basis for the Montreal Protocol on Ozone Depleting Substances. In this protocol, a baseline for consumption of chlorofluorocarbons (CFC's) the substances generating the increasing hole in the stratospheric ozone layer, was established: a certain baseline for developed countries and a certain baseline for developing countries. From that baseline onwards, countries have different obligations. The obligations for developed countries are stricter than those for the developing countries. But the idea of establishing a baseline already exists.

Another criterion for defining equity is brought to the table when people mention a political will to pay. We are talking about a global problem that must be solved. Forget about everything except this criterion: those who have resources should show the political will and interest to do something about it, just because they have the resources to pay for it. Again, the burden falls on developed countries, at least at the international level. However, this idea will immediately prevail in internal or domestic law when finding ways and means to protect the environment at the domestic level.

One criterion more calls for “distributive justice”. It aspires to a new international economic order with the idea of “starting from scratch”.

Together all the described concepts of equity make the issue of finding a solution to global environmental problems, become very complicated. Many of these concepts are recriminatory, finger pointing toward certain groups of countries. Negotiations experience illustrates that one has to be very pragmatic, and the goal must be to find a formula that works. A combination of all the criteria mentioned previously might build a consensus for defining equity, that could provide the basis for further understandings from which to find solutions to global problems. The result in a concrete agreement would be that the north developed, countries, and South developing countries, would take similar measures regarding certain environmental problems. But the equity perspectives of the two groups of countries are different.

In the end, the perspectives of the two groups of countries do not matter. Rather, the important point is to reach concrete measures. This has to be used in a positive way for humanity. Equity cannot be defined in a unilateral or simplistic manner. It is very critical to a global solution to agree upon a definition of equity.

Finally, I want to touch on the aspect of governance, a current development in international negotiations. By understanding Principle 21 of the Stockholm Declaration, countries are realizing that sovereignty cannot be claimed in the traditional sense any more. It is clearer to all countries that they must at least share information regarding internal activities that cause transboundary impacts. This is very poorly understood, yet has reached global levels. There is no mechanism at the international level that truly accomplishes the goal of setting a framework for countries to share information and later enable them to agree on measures.

To speak of governance means to speak of I a system of review of the action of countries, regarding environmental problems, no such system in place allows exchange of views in an impartial, neutral and positive manner. It is to be hoped that within the next twenty years, we will see the development of new governance rules it the international level.

Integrated Conservation Planning in the Cuiabá River Basin, Mato Grosso, Brazil

William J. Possiel¹, Adalberto Eberhard, Angela Tresinari

¹ Regional Director, The Nature Conservancy, 1815 N. Lynn Street, Arlington, VA 22209

The Pantanal is the world's largest freshwater wetland, and one of its most productive wetland wildlife habitats. It covers over 140,000 km² in Brazil alone.

Over the past 250 years traditional development, especially cattle ranching, had been compatible with conservation of the Pantanal, but current trends threaten the dynamic processes that sustain the wetland system.

The Nature Conservancy in partnership with Ecotrópica Foundation has launched a major initiative to protect the biological diversity of the Cuiabá River basin, one of the Pantanal's main tributaries.

The three most significant activities affecting the water basin are: a) agroindustrial development in the water basin, b) intense gold and diamond mining, and c) urban and regional development. In addition, the proposal to create a transportation link between various countries in Brazil, Paraguay, Bolivia, Argentina and Uruguay, represents a major threat to the stability of the complex hydrologic regime.

Efforts will begin with the development of an integrated conservation plan for the northern Pantanal, which will include an in-depth study of the region from the ecological, social, and economic points of view. Threats and their causes will be identified, conservation priorities will be established, and solutions will be proposed which take into account the needs and aspirations of the local inhabitants. The expansion and protection of a core area in and around the Pantanal National Park will be considered.

The product of this study will be an Integrated Conservation Plan for the Cuiabá River Basin, describing the dynamics and problems of the region and containing specific recommendations for conservation and compatible development action.

When the Plan is completed, the Ecotrópica Foundation with support from The Nature Conservancy will work to secure the cooperation of the public and private sector in order to implement its recommended actions.

KEYWORDS

Pantanal, wetland, river basin, biodiversity, threats, bioreserve

THE PANTANAL ECOSYSTEM

The Pantanal is the largest freshwater wetland in the World, covering over 140,000 km² in Brazil alone (EMBRAPA, 1993). In the Pantanal three distinct floristic stocks - cerrados, Amazon forest and Chaco - come together in a complex mosaic of terrestrial diversity (Prance, 1982). The cycle of heavy tropical rains in the wet season causes the Pantanal's rivers to overflow, flooding an area the size of Nebraska.

The geomorphology of the Pantanal consists of an alluvial plain, which varies between 100-200 m in altitude and is surrounded by a crystalline plateau - planalto -, approximately 600-700 in altitude, covered with cerrado vegetation.

During the dry season the waters recede, exposing rich grasslands and forests, dotted with countless lagoons and marshes. The temperature is hot and rainy in the summer and mild and dry in the winter with average temperatures of 32°C and 21°C respectively. Average precipitation is between 1,000 and 1,400 mm per year, concentrated between December and March. It is estimated that 92% of the plains are composed of hydromorphic origin and more than 70% of the soils are considered to be low fertility (EMBRAPA, 1993).

This cycle makes the Pantanal one of the world's most productive wetland wildlife habitats. Millions of waterfowl breed and feed along its rivers and lagoons, and dense populations of jaguars (Pantera onca), capybaras (Hydrochaeris hydrochaeris), marsh deer (Blastocerus dichotomus), giant anteaters (Myrmecophaga tridactyla), hyacinth macaws (Anodorhynchus hyacinthinus), rhea (Rhea americana) and others thrive in its forests and grasslands. The waters themselves are home to vast numbers of caimans (Caiman crocodilus yacare), giant otters (Pteronura bras