Openness, Sustainability, and Public Participation: New Designs for Transboundary River Basin Institutions

The world's transboundary environmental institutions typically are driven from the top, function behind closed doors, disregard sustainability, and rely on technical fixes or regulatory mechanisms. This article compares those approaches, as manifested in various river basin commissions, to a new, more democratic model being tested in the U.S.-Mexico border region. Water factors into many transboundary environmental problems. More than 300 river basins are shared by two or more countries. The authors examine seven international river basin compacts, sketch four common conceptual paradigms, and argue that these models mostly ignore local needs and public inputs and sometimes also fail in their explicit objectives. The border between the United States and Mexico offers a more promising design. There, as a result of the 1993 North American Free Trade Agreement, a new, innovative authority, the Border Environmental Cooperation Commission (BECC), has emerged. This institution has been fashioned to protect local interests and to sustain its activities environmentally and financially. We examine how well the BECC has fulfilled its promise of openness, transparency, and binationality, and conclude that properly adapted, the model's roots—openness, transparency, capacity building, bottom-up design, and sustainability—could take hold in other transboundary areas.

[1]  D. Pontius Colorado River Basin Study: Report to the Western Water Policy Review Advisory Commission , 1997 .

[2]  M. Falkenmark The massive water scarcity now threatening Africa - why isn't it being addressed? , 1989 .

[3]  K. Harold,et al.  Strengthening Compliance with International Environmental Accords: Preliminary Observations from a Collaborative Project , 1995 .

[4]  D. Liverman,et al.  ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES ALONG THE UNITED STATES-MEXICO BORDER: Drivers of Change and Responses of Citizens and Institutions , 1999 .

[5]  E. Wright The world today , 1978 .

[6]  M. Spalding Resolving International Environmental Disputes: Public Participation and the Right-to-Know , 1995 .

[7]  Amikam Nachmani,et al.  Water Jitters in the middle east , 1997 .

[8]  W. Malm,et al.  On the potential of regional-scale emissions zoning as an air quality management tool for the grand canyon , 1994 .

[9]  A. Wolf,et al.  Trends in Transboundary Water Disputes and Dispute Resolution , 2000 .

[10]  S. Mumme,et al.  The Commission on Environmental Cooperation and the U.S.-Mexico Border Environment , 1996 .

[11]  R. Varady,et al.  The U.S.-Mexican Border Environment Cooperation Commission: Collected Perspectives on the First Two Years , 1996 .

[12]  L. Milich,et al.  Managing Transboundary Resources: Lessons from Ambos Nogales , 1994 .

[13]  V. Nanda Water in the Middle East: Conflict or Cooperation? , 1988, American Journal of International Law.

[14]  E. Weiss,et al.  Strengthening Compliance with International Environmental Accords , 1997 .

[15]  T. Bernauer,et al.  Reducing Pollution of the River Rhine: The Influence of International Cooperation , 1996 .

[16]  A. Tarlock The Role of Non-Governmental Organizations in the Development of International Environmental Law , 1992 .

[17]  Philip L. Fradkin,et al.  A River No More: The Colorado River and the West , 1981 .

[18]  Candice Stevens,et al.  Harmonization, Trade, and the Environment. , 1993 .

[19]  T. Maluwa Towards an internationalisation of the Zambezi River regime: the role of international law in the common management of an international watercourse , 1992 .

[20]  H. Ingram,et al.  Divided Waters: Bridging the U.S.-Mexico Border , 1995 .

[21]  Le Moigne,et al.  Country Experiences with Water Resources Management; Economic, Institutional, Technological and Environmental Issues , 1992 .

[22]  The Danube: Dams over troubled waters , 1992, Nature.

[23]  E. Gibbon,et al.  The student's Gibbon : a history of the decline and fall of the Roman Empire , 2010 .

[24]  J. Linnerooth‐Bayer The Danube River Basin: negotiating settlements to transboundary environmental issues , 1990 .

[25]  Peter H. Gleick,et al.  Water in crisis: a guide to the world's fresh water resources , 1993 .

[26]  Christopher Kelly,et al.  The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Emp , 1998, Greece and Rome.

[27]  J. Ausink,et al.  State Collapse and Ethnic Violence: Toward a Predictive Model , 1996, The US Army War College Quarterly: Parameters.

[28]  T. Wohlgenant,et al.  Resolving water disputes: conflict and cooperation in the United States, the Near East, and Asia , 1994 .

[29]  Ladis K. D. Kristof THE NATURE OF FRONTIERS AND BOUNDARIES , 1959 .

[30]  Mary E. Morris,et al.  Water and conflict in the Middle East: Threats and opportunities , 1997 .

[31]  Gilbert R. Winham Enforcement of Environmental Measures: Negotiating the NAFTA Environmental Side Agreement , 1994 .

[32]  D. Grey,et al.  African Water Resources: Challenges and Opportunities for Sustainable Development , 1996 .

[33]  G. Blake The peaceful management of transboundary resources , 1995 .

[34]  J. Kolars Observations regarding water sharing and management, an intensive analysis of the Jordan river basin with reference to long distance transfers , 1995 .

[35]  H. Ingram,et al.  International Boundary and Water Commission: an institutional mismatch for resolving transboundary water problems , 1993 .

[36]  Kauṭalya,et al.  Kautilya's Arthaśāstra , 1923 .

[37]  R. E. Davis A synoptic climatological analysis of air quality in the Grand Canyon National Park , 1993 .

[38]  A. Wolf Middle East water conflicts and directions for conflict resolution , 1996 .

[39]  H. Amery Water security as a factor in Arab‐Israeli wars and emerging peace , 1997 .

[40]  M. J. Gunning The Projected Impact of the North American Free Trade Agreement on Transboundary Water Management between Mexico and the U.S.A. , 1996 .