Elsevier

Land Use Policy

Volume 50, January 2016, Pages 363-370
Land Use Policy

The complexity of cooperative governance and optimization of institutional arrangements in the Greater Mekong Subregion

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.09.030Get rights and content

Highlights

  • The study goal is to design an optimized framework of institutional arrangements through the complexity analysis of intricate causes that have hindered cooperative governance in the GMS.

  • We first summarize the changes in the GMS in the past 20 years to understand the development background.

  • Second, we classify marked issues into three aspects: (1) the contradiction between livelihood development and environmental protection, (2) the imbalance between the principle of “common but different” and the guideline of maximizing national interests and (3) the conflict between the support and opposition for hydropower development in the Mekong between upstream and downstream countries.

  • Third, based on an in-depth analysis of the complicated causes of these issues, we design four interacted solutions to optimize institutional arrangements for future cooperative governance: (1) breaking the inner connection of poverty, drugs and crime; (2) promoting the strategic shift from blood transfusions to hematopoietic in socioeconomic development; (3) establishing mechanisms of interest sharing; and (4) building a diverse and polycentric regional coordination system.

  • Finally, we systematically analyze the complicated relationship among the different solutions and additional challenges for the future.

Abstract

This study’s focus is on the Greater Mekong Subregion (GMS). The study’s approach is to find, analyse and solve problems, and the method used is the mixed application of theoretical and empirical analysis based on rich materials and data. The study goal is to design an optimized framework of institutional arrangements through the complexity analysis of intricate causes that have hindered cooperative governance in the GMS. Concretely, we first summarize the changes in the GMS in the past 20 years to understand the development background. Second, we classify marked issues into three aspects: (1) the contradiction between livelihood development and environmental protection, (2) the imbalance between the principle of “common but different” and the guideline of maximizing national interests and (3) the conflict between the support and opposition for hydropower development in the Mekong between upstream and downstream countries. Third, based on an in-depth analysis of the complicated causes of these issues, we design four interactive solutions to optimize institutional arrangements for future cooperative governance: (1) breaking the inner connection of poverty, drugs and crime; (2) promoting the strategic shift from blood transfusions to haematopoiesis in socioeconomic development; (3) establishing mechanisms of interest sharing; and (4) building a diverse and polycentric regional coordination system. Finally, we systematically analyse the complicated relationship among the different solutions and additional challenges for the future.

Introduction

The global issues of complex cooperative governance and optimization of institutional arrangement in global major river basin systems have become increasingly significant. Meanwhile, international societies and local people have paid more attention to further improvement. Currently, the Ganges River basin in South Asia, Rhine River in West Europe, Nile River in Africa and Amazon basin in Central America are systems that have learned from past mistakes, and there has been a great level of knowledge gained in regional cooperation in managing river basins (IR, 2014). As the largest international river, the Mekong plays an important role in regional development. However, intricate political, socioeconomic and ecological situations have also led to more uncertainty and complexity in the development of cooperation in the Greater Mekong Subregion (GMS) (Chheang, 2010).

From the aspect of politics, China, Laos and Vietnam are socialist countries, Thailand and Cambodia are constitutional monarchies, and Myanmar has been placed in the category of Military Regime in the past, although the country has elected Military Generals who are retired and elected by citizens. These six neighbouring countries thus have three types of political modes and social systems (Yang and Lv, 2007). Countries that have different political systems often have various cultures and habits, and in the course of international cooperation and affairs, they have different requirements for cooperative methods and actions (Liu and Jin, 2013). From the perspective of economic development, the regional economic level of the GMS is relatively backward, although there are large gaps between countries. Myanmar, Laos and Cambodia are classified by the UN as the least developed countries. Although China has become the second largest economy in the world, Yunnan and Guangxi in the GMS are labelled backward provinces of economic development, in contrast with China's overall economic level. Thailand’s economic development level is relatively high; however, the huge development gap between Bangkok and other places cannot be avoided today (Liu and Jin, 2013, UN, 2013). For water resource development and environmental protection, the upstream region of the Mekong River has 36.56 million kWh reserves of hydropower, and the downstream region has 37.00 million kWh reserves. Theoretically, 51% of the hydropower resources is concentrated in Laos, 33% of it is in Cambodia, and the remaining 16% is distributed in Thailand and Vietnam (Zhang, 2007). Currently, most of the members are inclined to adopt the policy logic of shifting from natural resources to capital, but the rapid economic development through the large-scale exploitation of water and other resources will inevitably lead to serious challenges for environmental protection in the GMS (He and Li, 2008, Grumbine and Xu, 2011). Regarding social security, the “golden triangle” around Thailand, Laos and Myanmar is one of the largest drug production and trade areas in the world (Stone, 2010). In addition, a series of complicated social issues, such as human trafficking and transnational crime, have seriously plagued regional security and stability (Li, 2013). Therefore, a series of issues from economic, ecological and social levels have had huge impact on the regional development; meanwhile, local countries and people have also tried to find possible ways through livelihood development, participatory biodiversity conservation and collaboration in socio-economic development.

Against this complicated background, this study sought to learn what changes have taken place in the GMS in the past 20 years, including the prominent problems, their causes and their complexity. We will also look at how to solve these problems and optimize institutional arrangements. Along this logical train of thought, we analysed the changes in three aspects: (1) the cooperation mechanisms among the members of the GMS, (2) GMS internal trade and cooperation, and (3) the outside support and assistance of other countries and organizations. In analysing the complexity of the problems and their causes, we focus on three comprehensive contradictions: (1) that between livelihood development and biodiversity conservation, (2) that between the principle of “common but different” and maximizing respective national interests, and (3) that between the support for and opposition to hydropower development on the Mekong River among the upstream and downstream countries. In the phase of problem solving, we integrate three complexity analysis results and then propose pertinent solutions: (1) breaking the inner connection of poverty, drugs and crime; (2) promoting the strategic shift from blood transfusions to haematopoiesis in socioeconomic development; (3) establishing mechanisms of interest sharing; and (4) building a diverse and polycentric regional coordination system. Finally, we systematically analyse the complicated relationships among the different solutions and challenges for the future.

Section snippets

Study area and methods

The Mekong is the largest river in Southeast Asia, with a total length of 4880 km; the latitude of the river’s headwaters is 5388 m. The Mekong flows from north to south through six countries: China, Myanmar, Laos, Thailand, Cambodia and Vietnam (Fig. 1). The Mekong River within the territory of China and Myanmar is called the Upper Mekong River (upstream), and it is 2395 km long. The stream segment within China is called the Lancang River, and its length is 2130 km. The other segment of the

What changes have taken place in the GMS?

The GMS has seen great changes in the past 20 years, especially in the establishment of a number of multilateral cooperation mechanisms, the significant enhancement of economic cooperation and the on-going assistance from outside countries and organizations.

The contradiction between livelihood development and biodiversity conservation

The contradiction between development and protection is actually one of the most prominent contradictions in the GMS. From the perspective of development, using the Mekong River’s water resources accords with regional and national interests (IWMI, 2015, MRC, 2015a, MRC, 2015b). However, from the perspective of protecting a region with some of the most abundant ecological resources in the world, the Mekong basin is extremely sensitive to environmental changes (ICEM, 2010). For example, Tonle Sap

Breaking the inner connection of poverty, drugs and crime

The extreme poverty in the “Golden Triangle” of the GMS leads some villagers to illegally cultivate opium for their livelihoods. In 2012, the opium cultivation area was 51,000 ha, and the yield exceeded even that of the 690 t in Myanmar. In Laos as well, more than 6800 ha arable land is planted with opium (Liu and Jin, 2013). In 2011, the border police alone in China’s Yunnan province tracked down more than 2000 drug crimes (Liu, 2011, Li, 2014). In addition, backward medical conditions and

Discussion and the way forward

Great changes in many areas have been evident over the past 20 years. However, these changes have also led to complicated problems in the context of the regional environment. In the three categories of contradictions that we analysed above, first, in the environment of both poverty and rich biodiversity, balancing people’s livelihood development with biodiversity conservation has become a difficult decision for the area's countries and people. Second, as we established above, the guideline of

Acknowledgements

Many thanks to the colleagues and students who came from countries and regions in GMS, they help us to provide lots of important information and data. The same thanks have to give to the author and scholars who collected and analyzed materials in their original works related to the reference list that contributing to the vital help for this study. In addition, this study is supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No.71403187); sponsored by Shanghai Pujiang Program

References (69)

  • CAEXPO (China-ASEAN Expo), 2011. Thailand wants to import Laos electricity....
  • Chheang, Y, 2010. An Introduction to Greater Mekong Sub-regional Cooperation, CICP Working Paper No. 34....
  • Chiangrai Times, 2013. Greater Mekong Subregion Single-Visa Plan Edges Forward....
  • Cronin, R., Hamlin, T., 2012. Mekong Tuning Point: Shared River for a Shared...
  • Delauney, G., 2010. Laos hydropower a “battery' for power-hungry region. BBC News. <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/11962210>...
  • Q. Dong

    The Collection of Basic Materials in Lancang-Mekong Basin

    (2006)
  • J. Dore et al.

    Deliberation and scale in Mekong Region water governance

    Environ. Manag.

    (2010)
  • J.W. Ferguson et al.

    Potential effects of dams on migratory fish in the Mekong River: lessons from Salmon in the Fraser and Columbia rivers

    Environ. Manag.

    (2011)
  • R.E. Grumbine et al.

    Mekong hydropower development

    Science

    (2011)
  • R.E. Grumbine et al.

    Mekong hydropower: drivers of change and governance challenges

    Front. Ecol. Environ.

    (2012)
  • Guo, Y., 2014. New Trend and China Policy in the Water Governance of Mekong River. Oriental Morning Post A14, 1–3 (in...
  • Y. Guo et al.

    Water resource development and environment protection in lower Mekong River: policy options and basin governance

    World Econ. Pol.

    (2013)
  • M. Ha

    The role of regional institutions in sustainable development: a review of the Mekong river commission’s first 15 years

    J. Sustain. Dev.

    (2011)
  • Haryey, R., 2011. Burma dam: Why Myitsone plan is being halted. <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-15123833>...
  • D. He

    Rational Utilization and Coordination Management of Water Resources in International Cross-border Rivers

    (2006)
  • S. He et al.

    The current situation and problems in cooperation in the GMS

    Asia Afri. Rev.

    (2008)
  • Herbertson, K., 2013. Xayaburi Dam: How Laos Violated the 1995 Mekong Agreement....
  • P. Hirsch

    The changing political dynamics of dam building on the Mekong

    Water Althern.

    (2010)
  • ICEM (International Center for Environmental Management), 2010. Strategic Environmental Assessment of Hydropower on the...
  • IR (International Rivers), 2014. Public Statement: Stop Mekong Mainstream Dams - Stop All Investment....
  • IWMI, 2015. Annual Report 2014: Putting water at the heart of sustainable development....
  • D. Kingston et al.

    Uncertainty in climate change projections of discharge for the Mekong river basin

    Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci.

    (2011)
  • L. Kong

    Joint law enforcement in the Mekong river basin between China, Laos, Myanmar and Thailand: legal foundation and mechanism consolidation

    Southeast Asian Stud.

    (2013)
  • C. Kuenzer et al.

    Understanding the impact of hydropower developments in the context of upstream–downstream relations in the Mekong river basin

    Sustain. Sci.

    (2013)
  • Cited by (0)

    1

    Address: Siping R.d, No. 1239, Block A of Tongji Building, Shanghai, 200092, China. Fax: +86 02165982272.

    View full text