Part VI - Concurrent Fora and Special Papers

Report of the Non-Government Organization Forum
Binational Management of the San Juan River Basin: From War to Cooperation
WATERDIALOGUE - A Communication Link for Water Resource Professionals in the Western Hemisphere
Interamerican Survey of Water Resource Professionals

Report of the Non-Government Organization Forum

Held on October 27, 1993, as part of the Concurrent Sessions of the Interamerican Dialogue on Water Management

On the afternoon of October 27, 1993, the opening day of the Interamerican Dialogue on Water Management, approximately 70 persons took part in a spirited NGO Forum at the Hotel Inter-Continental in Miami. The program, which was organized and conducted by the Global Tomorrow Coalition (GTC), in collaboration with the National Audubon Society, included presentations by:

· Mr. Peter A.A. Berle, President of the National Audubon Society, New York, USA
· Ms. Alicia Bárcena, Executive Director, The Earth Council, San Jose, Costa Rica
· Mr. Steven J. Parcells, National Audubon Society, Washington, DC, USA
· Mr. Donald R. Lesh, President, Global Tomorrow Coalition, Washington, DC

The results of the ensuing animated discussion in the NGO Forum were later summarized in the following statement:

1. The Miami NGO Forum provided a unique and valuable opportunity to continue the NGO dialogue that preceded the 1992 U.N. Conference on the Environment and Development (Rio Earth Summit), and that has continued since the Summit, especially as it relates to water management and policy issues in the Western Hemisphere. NGO networking is a positive and an irreversible process that needs continuous strengthening and that is benefited from such fora as the Interamerican Dialogue on Water Management.

2. Enhanced public access to and public participation in water management decision making is essential to more efficient and equitable use of water resources. NGO interests in greater public participation and access to information does not lessen the recognition for the need of bold new water management initiatives in areas such as the development of new, low-cost, the clean technologies, regional and national water conservation strategies, and least-cost, demand-side water management policies.

3. Public information capacity strengthening is needed in these three areas: 1) greater political access to water management decision making and information, 2) greater technical capability for absorbing and processing water resource information, and 3) more financial resources available to gather and analyze information.

4. NGOs suggested a number of instruments or mechanisms to achieve greater access to information: 1) an “international ombudsman” approach, 2) a telecommunications network, 3) a “troubleshooter” group, 4) a “clearinghouse” office, and 5) a set of user-friendly guidelines on how to start and track information on water projects.

5. Regarding activities of international financial institutions (IFIs) such as the World Bank, increased informed access by NGOs is essential, and increased democratization of operations of these institutions at the local level must continue. Also, priority setting among the IFIs should reflect the goals of Agenda 21 and include grater public involvement.

6. The Rio Declaration agreed upon by 170 governments, specifically acknowledges that individuals have the right to information at the national level (Principle 10). NGOs need to reinforce this affirmative obligation among the parties.

7. U.S. NGO involvement in other countries should be conducted in cooperation and openness with local NGOs.

8. Existing NGO information gathering, analyzing, and policy formulating facilities should be improved before the creation of redundant facilities.

9. There is the need for a “best practice” catalogue for innovative best water management practices, and it should be distributed widely.

For additional copies of the paper Water Quality as a Top Priority for the UN Commission on Sustainable Development, (in English or Spanish) please contact Mr. Steve Parcells, National Audubon Society, 666 Penn. Ave., SE, Washington, DC 20003, USA. Also, the Earth Council is disseminating, through a diskette, The Rio Agreements and the NGO Treaties at a cost of $2.00. Contact: Francisco Mata, Earth Council, P.O. Box 2323-1002, San Jose Costa Rica.

Binational Management of the San Juan River Basin: From War to Cooperation

a Roundtable Discussion held as part of the

INTERAMERICAN DIALOGUE ON WATER MANAGEMENT

Richard Hamann¹, Thomas T. Ankersen¹, Justin Bloom¹ and Marco A. González²

¹ Center for Governmental Responsibility, College of Law, University of Florida; 230 Bruton Geer, Gainesville, Florida 32611-7629, USA.

² Nicaraguan Foundation for Sustainable Development (FUDESOS); Apartado Postal 2313, Managua, Nicaragua.

The San Juan River has long been a focus of conflict. The strategic importance of the river as a route for trade and travel between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans has been recognized for centuries. More recent attention has been directed at the ecological significance of the tropical forests, wetlands and estuaries of the lower San Juan, which Nicaragua and Costa Rica have agreed to protect through the Si-A-Paz binational complex of protected areas. Disputes have continued, however, over alleged pollution of the river, rights to navigation and potential diversions of water from the river for irrigation and hydropower development. As part of the Dialogue, a group of attorneys and water managers from Nicaragua and Costa Rica met to discuss the potential for cooperative management of the watershed. Staff from the Center for Governmental Responsibility at the University of Florida College of Law and two of Florida's regional water management districts facilitated the discussions. A broader regional perspective was provided by the participation of environmental lawyers from Honduras, Guatemala and Mexico. This paper will describe the background of the discussions and the resulting conclusions.

I. BACKGROUND

1. The San Juan River.

The San Juan River (Rio San Juan, also called Desaguadero) flows from the southeastern end of Lake Nicaragua at San Carlos, Nicaragua and flows approximately 199 kilometers (124 miles) into the Caribbean Sea at San Juan del Norte (formerly Greytown). The river forms approximately 115 kilometers (72 miles) of the border between Nicaragua and Costa Rica. Along its southeasterly course, its largest tributaries are the San Carlos and Sarapiquí Rivers from Costa Rica. In addition, numerous smaller watercourses flow into the River from both countries. Near its mouth the San Juan divides into three distinct arms that flow into the Caribbean Sea, forming a highly productive estuary. As the river branches off, the Juanillo Menor and the San Juan proper flow to the north and the Rio Colorado, the largest branch, flows south through Costa Rica. Navigation is impeded by rapids at Toro, El Castillo, and Machuca and is limited to boats with a shallow draft.

During the western migrations in the United States between 1850 and 1870, immigrants to California transferred at San Juan del Norte from Atlantic steamers to small boats which went up the river and across Lake Nicaragua. They then travelled overland to the Pacific port of San Juan del Sur. This same route was once considered as a possible canal route between the Caribbean and the Pacific.

2. A History of Conflict.

The river has been the scene of conflict for centuries. During the last half of the 17th century, the Miskito Coast was controlled by the English, who harassed the Spanish by sailing up the San Juan to attack Nicaragua's largest city at that time, Granada. British and American forces, and their allies, contested control of the river during the mid-1800's, with devastating consequences for the region. Although both U.S. and British interests had secured equal access to a potential canal route across Nicaragua,¹ the flood of immigrants to the gold fields of California could not wait for such developments. At the height of the California Gold Rush 2000 people per month traveled this route. The entire journey from the Eastern seaboard of the United States to California took only 22 days.² Cornelius Vanderbilt controlled the route, though with British financing. The potential for British control of the route was of sufficient concern to the U.S. government that it apparently encouraged invasion of Nicaragua by an American adventurer named William Walker. Walker intended to annex Nicaragua to the U.S. as a new slave state. Ultimately, a Central American force, led by the Costa Rican President Juan Rafael Mora and supported by British funds and a naval blockade, defeated Walker.³

During the Nicaraguan Civil Wars from 1977-1987, the San Juan River was again a scene of conflict. Those years were marked by repeated skirmishes along the border and the escalation of political tension between Nicaragua and Costa Rica. As the violence has subsided, attention is being focused on the environmental degradation of the San Juan watershed and use of the River in the growing tourism market. Even though Nicaragua has possession of almost all the river bed, approximately 80% of the watershed lies within Costa Rica. The Costa Rican estuary, in turn, receives about 80% of the river's flow through the Rio Colorado branch. Consequently, there is an urgent need to develop an institutional framework for binational watershed management.

3. Legal Status.

The present legal status of the section of the river that forms the border between the two countries is defined by the Cañas-Jerez Treaty of 1858, as clarified through President Cleveland's arbitral awards in 18$8 and subsequently in 1905 when the joint border was drawn.⁴ Under the Treaty, the river lies entirely within Nicaragua, while Costa Rica retains possession of the southern shore and rights to navigation for its citizens and for the transportation of “goods of commerce” and a right of consultation regarding development of the river.

4. Si-A-Paz.

The International System of Protected Areas for Peace or Si-A-Paz⁵ is a binational system of protected areas along the lower San Juan River. A significant portion of the watershed of the San Juan River lies within this protected area complex. The idea for Si-A-Paz was developed in the 70's and was first proposed in 1988. After numerous bilateral agreements and declarations over the years, Costa Rican President Rafael Calderón and Nicaraguan President Violeta Chamorro signed an official agreement in April 1993 that designated nearly five million acres of land in the two countries as Si-A-Paz International Park. Si-A-Paz is one of the binational protected areas designated for priority protection in the recently signed Convention on Biological Diversity and Priority Wild Areas in Central America.⁶

In Costa Rica, Si-a-Paz includes three protected areas: Tortuguero National Park, Barra del Colorado Wildlife Refuge and Caño Negro Wildlife Refuge. Much of the land in the wildlife refuges and in the corridors that connect these parks remains privately owned. In addition, banana plantations, cattle ranching, and logging operations have increased within the region, and within the watershed of the Rio San Juan.

In Nicaragua, Si-A-Paz divides the southern portion of the country into three zones under different levels of protection. This scheme is based on the concept of “directed colonization.” The western zone is open to development, the eastern zone is set aside as a forest reserve where farming is prohibited, and the middle zone is to serve as a buffer zone where land use is limited to “sustainable farming.” With peace, however, the region has begun to attract landless Nicaraguan farmers. The migration of agricultural colonists to the Southern frontier has grown to approximately 8,500, most having arrived within the last two years.

II. CURRENT ISSUES

1. Use of the River.

Tourism on the San Juan River has become an increasingly lucrative trade. Although political unrest and inadequate infrastructure have hampered Nicaraguan efforts to promote travel, Costa Rican guides are now transporting tourists on the River and obtaining the economic benefits of a growing ecotourism market. Nicaragua contends that this violates the 1858 Cañas-Jerez Treaty, since tourists do not constitute “goods of commerce” within the meaning of the agreement. At the time the Treaty entered into force tourism was not an issue and the phrase “goods in commerce” had an accepted meaning. Costa Rica had no viable means of transportation to the sea in the region and was compelled to use the San Juan to ship its agricultural goods to Caribbean ports. The question now presented by this agreement is whether it was the intent of the drafters to limit “goods of commerce” to agricultural goods and if not, do tourists fall within the scope of “goods of commerce?”

In an effort to resolve this aspect of the dispute, a binational commission was created and has made improvements in regulating the transportation of tourists between the two countries on the River. Foreign tourists, but not Costa Rican nationals, are now required to obtain visas to travel on the river and to pay a small fee to local officials for the privilege. In addition, each country has formed a national commission to follow these issues and coordinate each nation's institutional actions regarding the joint border and its problems.

2. Diversion of Water.

Although most of the flow of the San Juan River originates in Costa Rica, Lake Nicaragua makes a substantial contribution.⁷ The only current diversion is to support irrigated agriculture along the Tempisque River in Costa Rica. There may be pressure to expand the extent of that diversion in the future. The greatest concern, however, stems from consideration by Nicaragua of the potential to cut a channel from Lake Nicaragua to the Pacific Ocean and harness the resulting flow of water for hydroelectric power production. Such a development could lower the lake and significantly reduce flow to the river, especially during the dry season. Both Nicaragua and Costa Rica have substantial fisheries at the mouth of the river that could be adversely impacted by freshwater diversions. Costa Rica, in particular, derives considerable income from foreign anglers who come to pursue such estuarine-dependent species as snook and tarpon.

3. Contamination of the San Juan River.

There is increasing concern that pollution of the San Juan river, particularly from intensive agricultural practices within the Costa Rican portion of the watershed, has had an adverse impact on water quality within the River. There have been reports within the last two years of substantial fish kills downstream from the major Costa Rican tributaries, the Sarapiquí and San Carlos Rivers. Studies conducted by the Nicaraguan Center for Research on Water Resources (Centro de Recursos Acuáticos) found high levels of pesticides. There is also concern for pollution by nutrients, sediments, and solid waste (principally the plastic bags used in banana cultivation). Costa Rica has been unwilling to accept the results of studies conducted by Nicaragua.

In August 1992, the Foreign Ministers of Costa Rica and Nicaragua signed a joint declaration in which they agreed to carry out environmental impact studies on their respective sides of the border. Nicaragua has also brought the water quality issues associated with the San Juan River to the Central American Commission for Environment and Development (CCAD), a recently formed regional environmental integration organization. The CCAD is charged with developing plans and strategies relating to regional environmental protection. It is comprised of cabinet-level ministers from each of the Central American countries with responsibility for natural resource management. The CCAD is seeking to have a neutral international organization, the Interamerican Institute for Cooperation for Agriculture (IICA), to carry out research to assess the river's condition and the sources of its contamination, but currently lacks funding to undertake the kinds of studies necessary to assess the magnitude of the problem and determine appropriate remedial measures.

III. THE DIALOGUE

The Interamerican Dialogue on Water Management provided an opportunity to evaluate ongoing efforts and develop new approaches to the binational management of the San Juan River Basin. A balanced group of Nicaraguans and Costa Ricans was invited to participate and funding to support travel was provided by the North South Center at the University of Miami. It was agreed that the discussions would be informal and that none of the participants would be representing their governments. Thomas T. Ankersen, an attorney working at the University of Florida College of Law's Center for Governmental Responsibility was chosen to facilitate the discussions. Three different sessions were held during the Dialogue.

The representatives from Nicaragua were Marco González, an attorney specializing in international and environmental law, Jose León Talavera, Chairman of the Environment and Natural Resources Committee of the Nicaraguan legislative assembly, and Javier López Medina, an engineer working for the Nicaraguan environment ministry, IRENA (Instituto Nicaragüense de Recursos Naturales y del Ambiente). The representatives from Costa Rica were Rodrigo Barahona, an attorney and President of the Centro de Derecho Ambiental y de los Recursos Naturales (CEDARENA) and Joaquín Tacsan, an attorney at the Arias Foundation. A broader regional perspective was provided by the participation of Alejandra Sobenes, an attorney from Guatemala and President of the Instituto de Derecho Ambiental y Desarrollo Sostenible (IDEADS), Clarissa Vega, an attorney from Honduras, and Diana Ponce-Nava, an attorney from Mexico and consultant to the United Nations Environmental Programme. Substantial technical assistance was contributed by three scientists and engineers from two of Florida's water management districts, Pat Frost and David Stites from the St. Johns River Water Management District and Horacio Wheelock from the South Florida Water Management District. All three had worked in Nicaragua.

After extensive discussion of the facts and issues described above, the participants came to several conclusions. Greatly enhanced cooperation in management of the basin was strongly supported by the group. There was recognition of the need to establish an institutional basis for such cooperation. Rather than seeking to establish new institutional structures, it was agreed that development of cooperative basin management should be pursued through the processes established for management of Si-A-Paz. To this end, the Costa Rican and Nicaraguan Parliamentary Commissions are planning a joint meeting, with part of the meeting to be held in Los Chiles, Costa Rica and part in San Carlos, Nicaragua.

The most pressing issues relate to water quality. There was concern that there is inadequate information currently available on the water quality characteristics of the San Juan River and its tributaries and on the water quality impacts of various land uses. A study that would be acceptable to both Nicaragua and Costa Rica is needed. A technical subgroup therefore met separately to develop the technical parameters of such a study.⁸ The study they designed would be based on a compilation of available topographic, hydrologic, socio-economic and physiochemical data on the river. It would include three field trips: a reconnaissance trip to identify sampling sites and arrange logistics, and sampling trips during the dry and wet seasons. The entire study, including the presentation of a final report to the joint commission, could be accomplished within 18 months. The cost could be significantly reduced by the contribution of time and expertise by water resource professionals from Florida's water management districts, other interested agencies or the private sector. Although the importance of estuarine conditions was recognized, they would require a separate study.

Conclusion

These efforts merit presentation to the water management community as a model for international cooperation in water resource management and peaceful conflict resolution. During the course of the roundtable, it became apparent that similar binational watershed management issues exist throughout the region. The development of an appropriate approach to transboundary water management of the San Juan River may provide a model for similar frontiers in Central America, such as the Gulf of Fonseca, shared by Honduras, El Salvador, and Nicaragua, the Coco River Basin, shared by Honduras and Nicaragua, and the Sixaloa, dividing Costa Rica and Panama.⁹ All of the participants felt that they would have benefited from understanding how other binational and multilateral efforts at river basin management have worked.¹⁰

Notes

1. The Clayton-Bulwer Treaty of 1850 guaranteed equal access to both nations and forbid efforts to colonize the region.

2. Diane Jukofsky, Along the San Juan, Lacsa's World 22, 21-23 (undated).

3. RALPH LEE WOODWARD, JR., CENTRAL AMERICA: A NATION DIVIDED, 137-145 (Second Edition, 1985 Oxford University Press).

4. FELIPE RODRÍGUEZ SERRANO, LOS DERECHOS DE COSTA RICA Y NICARAGUA EN EL RIO SAN JUAN (1983, Lehmann Editores).

5. The Spanish acronym for Sistema Internacional de Areas Protegidas para la Paz means “Yes to Peace”.

6. The nations of Central America have committed themselves under this agreement to establishing a system of protected areas extending throughout the region. Convention for the Conservation of Biological Diversity and Protection of Priority Wild Areas, Managua, Nicaragua (June, 1992). See generally, T. Ankersen & R. Hamann, The Mesoamerican Biological Corridor: The Legal Framework for an Integrated System of Protected Areas, Proceedings of the International Wildlife Management Congress, September, 1993, San Jose, Costa Rica; T. Ankersen, The Mesoamerican Biological Corridor: A Model Legal Framework for an Integrated Regional System of Protected Areas, Background Document (September, 1993, Center for Governmental Responsibility, University of Florida College of Law, Gainesville, Florida).

7. See generally, Claudio Gutierrez Huete, Caracterización de la Cuenca del Río San Juan (June 27, 1991).

8. The group consisted of Pat Frost, Javier López, David Stites and Horacio Wheelock.

9. All of the attorneys who participated in the roundtable are currently working together with colleagues from each of the other countries in Central America, Panama and Mexico on the MesoAmerican Biodiversity Legal Project, analyzing legal regimes for the management of protected areas in the region. The group plans to focus on watershed management in the near future. For further information, contact Tom Ankersen or Richard Hamann at the University of Florida College of Law, 230 Bruton-Geer Hall, Gainesville, Florida 32611-7629. (904) 392-2237 Internet: CGRTOM@NERVM.NERDC.UFL.EDU.

10. See e.g., JON MARTIN TROLLDALEN, INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONFLICT RESOLUTION: THE ROLE OF THE UNITED NATIONS, Ch. 5, Case Studies: International River Systems (1992): Kenneth Brooks, Hans Gregersen, Peter Ffolliott & K.G. Tejwani, Watershed Management: A Key to Sustainability, in NARENDRA P. SHARMA (ED.), MANAGING THE WORLD'S FORESTS: LOOKING FOR BALANCE BETWEEN CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT (1992); Guillermo J. Cano, Transboundary Freshwaters, in PETER SAND (ED.), THE EFFECTIVENESS OF INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL AGREEMENTS: A SURVEY OF EXISTING LEGAL INSTRUMENTS (1992).

WATERDIALOGUE - A Communication Link for Water Resource Professionals in the Western Hemisphere

James W. MacIntyre¹

¹ Director, The Together Foundation for Global Unity, 130 South Willard Street, Burlington, VT 05401, USA

The Together Foundation is actively expanding its network, TogetherNetä, in the Americas. Currently the Together Foundation operates host computer sites in New York, NY; Burlington, Vermont at the University of Vermont; and in Caracas, Venezuela. The Foundation is presently installing a host computer sites in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil; and Geneva, Switzerland. The Foundation is actively seeking other organizations in the Americas to support network nodes. Members of the network not located in a city with a host computer node will have access the network via telephone call to the nearest network node. The network will be connected to SprintNet, an X.25 packet-switching network. Cost saving X.25 access will be available to WATERDIALOGUE members in the fourth quarter of 1993. Access to TogetherNet is also available through the global Internet.

The TogetherNet system is an advanced communications and information sharing system that makes access and operation extremely simple for its users. TogetherNet users with Macintosh and MS-Windows computers are able to use the system through advanced graphic user interfaces that ease operation and optimize participation in the Interamerican Dialogue on Water Management working group. TogetherNet continuously upgrades network software and hardware to optimize its effectiveness for users given the advent of new hardware, software and telecommunications technologies.

The purpose of The Together Foundation and TogetherNet is to facilitate cooperation related to sustainable development and the implementation of Agenda 21. Many organizations are already using the TogetherNet system for these purposes. Currently, TogetherNet is one of the major platforms in use by the United Nations information dissemination systems. Together Foundation maintains a liaison office in New York to assist in the management and distribution of information through the TogetherNet system. This has resulted in an additional benefit to TogetherNet members, since vast amounts of resources and valuable information on topics such as environment, human rights, democratization and poverty are daily updated and discussed in this electronic forum.

The Together Foundation's network will be made available to members to all interested members the Interamerican Water Resource Network. The Foundation is pleased to grant access to these services to (30) charter members of WATERDIALOGUE for the years 1994 and 1995 at the discretion of the Dialogue Project Manager and Policy Council. Other parties interested in joining WATERDIALOGUE will be given (3) month trial memberships to the system at no cost. After the (3) month trial period members will be billed a flat $10 per month not including telecommunications costs.

The Together Foundation will assist the Interamerican Dialogue on Water Management in the creation of a virtual organization composed of WATERDIALOGUE members from the Americas. These members are from different organizations in various locations and intend to cooperate to “Link International Water Resources Networks.” The Together Foundation will be available to support WATERDIALOGUE members in the effective use of network communication services. Toll-free technical and customer support will be available Monday through Friday. The Foundation has created a prototype WATERDIALOGUE section within the TogetherNet system while working with Mr. Alberto J. Palombo, Dialogue Project Manager. More information is available about the TogetherNet system is available directly from the Together Foundation in Burlington, Vermont, USA, or by telephone (802) 862-2030.

Interamerican Survey of Water Resource Professionals

Note of the Editor: This survey instrument was designed and administered by the Global Tomorrow Coalition as directed by the Policy Council of the Interamerican Dialogue on Water Management. The Secretariat intends to continue the administration of this survey for the near future. If you need copies of the survey, please contact the Organization of American States - Department of Regional Development and Environment, Washington, DC, USA.

PURPOSE AND METHODOLOGY

The Interamerican Survey of Water Resource Professionals is intended to assess the potential benefits and services of an expanded Water Resource Partnership linking existing networks, associations, government agencies, businesses, organizations, and institutions in the Western Hemisphere. Since July 1993, it has been circulated to approximately 800 water resource professionals throughout the Americas to determine: (1) which water management networks are already functioning in the Western Hemisphere; (2) which information sources and services could be expanded through a new partnership to link these networks together with other water resource agencies, businesses, and institutions; and (3) how such a partnership might be established.

An interim report covering the first 105 responses was prepared and circulated at the time of the Interamerican Dialogue on Water Management in Miami, Florida, on October 27-30, 1993. A second, updated report was completed on January 31, 1994 as a part of the Grant Fulfillment Report presented to the South Florida Water Management District.

This third and final report is based on the answers contained in the total of 177 completed surveys received by the Global Tomorrow Coalition through March 25, 1994, of which 73 are South American and 104 are North American. The conclusions are intended to highlight those areas in which the views of water resource professionals from North America and South America coincide, and those in which they do not. Following the success of the Interamerican Dialogue on Water Management, it is important to build on the foundation of agreement, and to reconcile areas of disagreement, in order to foster stronger and more effective cooperation between water resource professionals in the Western Hemisphere.

BACKGROUND OF RESPONDENTS

The water resource professionals responding to this survey from both South America and North America have extensive experience with the issue of water resource management. More than a third of those from South America (34%) and from North America (38%) indicated that they had been active in the water resource field for over 20 years. Approximately the same percentages from both areas (30% as compared to 32%) indicated that they had spent at least 13 years on water resource issues.

Most respondents also have extensive educational backgrounds. Among South Americans, 41% have received a B.A. degree, and virtually the same percentage have an M.A. The remaining 16% have received a Doctorate. In comparison, 20% of North American respondents indicated that they have received a B.A. degree, 40% have an M.A., and fully 36% have received a Doctorate.

An area in which significant contrasts emerged among the respondents is that of their knowledge of each other's language. Fully 36% of South Americans reported “high” proficiencies in spoken and written English, and nearly two-thirds (61%) of South Americans indicated that they have “low” to “medium” proficiency in spoken English, and 64% in written English. On the other hand, an overwhelming majority of North American respondents characterized their proficiency as “low” or “none” in spoken Spanish (76%) and written Spanish (79%).

Except among Brazilian respondents, the knowledge of Portuguese was at a modest level among South Americans and was very low among North Americans, only 12% of whom indicated any ability to speak or read Portuguese. This suggests that language competence will be among the obstacles to be overcome if a true water resource partnership is to be created in the Americas.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

A full tabulation of answers to all questions in the survey is contained in Appendix I. Appendix II contains the names and addresses of all the respondents, while Appendix III is a tabulation of all other associations or networks with which the respondents reported an affiliation. These are selected issues on which the level of agreement or disagreement between South American and North American respondents seemed worthy of attention.

Water Management Problems

Almost equal numbers of respondents from South America and North America (56% and 65%, respectively) felt that greater emphasis should be placed on ecosystem-based approaches in dealing with water resource problems. There was a significant difference, however, in the numbers of South Americans (56%) and North Americans (22%) who saw sanitation treatment systems as a major water management problem.

Communication

On adequacy of communication among water resource professionals and institutions, there was a significant convergence of opinions. Very few respondents rated existing communication in their country highly (4%-9%), while many from both South America and North America (47%-56%) characterized it as only “medium” at best, Indeed, 49% of South Americans and 35% of North Americans rated communication at their national level “low” or “poor.”

Sound Water Resource Management

Approximately two-thirds of all respondents (68% from South America and 62% from North America) indicated that funding was a hindrance to the implementation of sound, sustainable water resource management in their immediate areas. On the other hand, 52% of South Americans cited institutional capacity as an obstacle in achieving their goals, while a small minority of North Americans (30%) indicated that it was a “major problem.” Significant majorities (55%-76%) ranked public understanding in the latter category as well.

Water Resource Entities

When asked which international and national entities are prominent in water resource management in their area, the respondents assigned highest rankings to federal/national, state/provincial, and district agencies, with significant majorities of North American respondents citing the latter two. Fully 25% of South American respondents indicated that universities were important to water resource management, while only 14% of North Americans agreed with them. Not surprisingly, 22% of South Americans cited United Nations agencies as important in their area, while only a small minority of North Americans (3%) did so.

Need for Stronger Partnership

There was near-unanimity among all respondents (96% from South America and 94% from North America) that there is a need for a stronger partnership among water resource professionals in the Western Hemisphere.

Potential Benefits

Strong majorities of the respondents from both areas (77%-74%) felt that improved exchange of information among water resource professionals would be a benefit from the creation of a stronger water resource partnership in the Americas. Among South American respondents, even larger majorities cited enhanced communication, cooperation, and technology exchange (70%, 70%, and 78%, respectively) as potential benefits. While a majority of North Americans agreed on communication and cooperation (76% and 64%, respectively), only 54% ranked the exchange of technology highly. Almost precisely equal numbers of respondents from both South and North America (56%-54%) indicated environmental education as a strong benefit of a closer partnership. Fully 70% of South Americans ranked training as “high” as opposed to only 35% of North Americans.

Establishing a Partnership

When asked about important factors to consider in the establishment of an interamerican partnership, 75% of South Americans and 61% of North Americans assigned highest priority to access to financial support. Similarly large majorities (64%-55%) cited access to professional staffing. The next most important issue for both South Americans (59%) and for North Americans (45%) was that of the location and ease of access to the proposed partnership. The independence of such an institution was regarded as less important, with high rankings by considerably less than half of the respondents (45%-20%).

Location of the Partnership

There was a distinct difference in view on the appropriate location of such a partnership. Among South Americans, 51% expressed high preference for a location in South America (only 10% of North Americans agreed), and 64% of North Americans felt that it should be located in North America (only 41% of South Americans agreed). Both South and North Americans (16% and 10% respectively) accorded Canada low preference as the site for the partnership. Approximately one-third (34%) of South American respondents and two-thirds (64%) of North Americans, however, agreed that the site of the partnership was “not important”.

APPENDIX I - RESULTS OF THE INTERAMERICAN SURVEY OF WATER RESOURCE PROFESSIONALS

The following is a copy of the survey distributed by the Policy Council. The number of South American and of North American respondents who answered particular questions are expressed in percentages. The first number always represents South American respondents, while the second number always represents those from North America.

1. How long have you been active in the water resource field? 16%-12% 1-5 years, 19%-19% 6-12 years, 30%-32% 13-20 years, 34%-38% over 20 years

2. What is your level of formal education? 0%-0% high school degree, 41%-20% university bachelor's degree, 42%-40% university master's degree, 16%-36% university doctorate, 0%-4% other

3. What is your level of proficiency in the following languages?

1. American Water Resources Association: In the past 29, years AWRA has concerned itself with American water resources policy by acting as a professional networking and development agency, and as a forum for communication between specialists.

2. American Society of Civil Engineers: Since its founding 141 years ago, the ASCE has as its objective “the advancement of the science and profession of engineering.” It does so by publishing monthly journals and holding meetings.

3. American Water Works Association: For over 50 years, AWWA has been involved in water supply and conservation issues. It provides water supply and utility standards.

4. International Water Resources Association: Since the early 1970s, the IWRA has focused on international water resource problems and issues. It publishes a journal and sponsors an annual international conference.

5. Tennessee Valley Authority: For 25 years, the TVA has worked on river navigation and economic development. It is a liaison with government agencies, and sponsors seminars.