THE INSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE – DESIGNING A STRONG ORGANISATION

1. THE INSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE – DESIGNING A STRONG ORGANISATION

2. There are a number of different ways of managing transboundary river systems, and different institutional responses to these challenges.

3. The costs of participating The costs of not participating are much smaller than • The Secretariat. • Staff time. • Hosting costs. • Monitoring / planning and implementation. • Lost sovereignty. • Increased conflict. • Lost opportunities for support (technical / financial). • Lost opportunities for benefit sharing. • Reduced water security. • Lost opportunities for regional integration/optimisation. THE COST / BENEFIT PICTURE

4. Grey et al (2009) indicate that; "Experience suggests, quite simply, that countries cooperate in the management of transboundary waters not when compelled by principles or an 'ethics of cooperation,' but when the net benefits of cooperation are perceived to be greater than the net benefits of non-cooperation, and the distribution of these net benefits is perceived to be fair." Sadoff and Gray (2005) have also suggested that; “A major challenge in each basin is to identify the right type of cooperative effort – one in which the benefits of cooperation outweigh the costs.”

5. DIFFERENT KINDS OF TRANSBOUNDARY RBOs • JOINT TECHNICAL COMMITTEES • Limited geographical scope, Technical people solving technical problems • DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITIES • Sometimes limited geographical scope. Infrastructure based – large agencies • BASIN WIDE COMMISSIONS • Basin wide improved management

6. ORASECOM and the BILATERALS • The Bilateral Arrangements are inherently strong; • They deliver significant benefits • Have low operating costs, • Have a longer history and existing ‘trust profile’. • Still seem to be the ‘first port of call’ • ORASECOM’s benefit is less clearly articulated, and it is getting expensive to participate. ORASECOM MUST DELIVER CLEARLY ARTICULATED BENEFITS TO THE PARTIES, WHICH THE BILATERALS CANNOT PROVIDE

7. THE DELPHI PROCESS The Delphi process is a systematic, interactive forecasting method which relies on a panel of experts. The value of the process is that it reduces the influence of ‘group think’ and other psychological factors. Its value in the ORASECOM context was that it polled opinion from all the Parties, and moved towards greater consensus or more common positions.

8. RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE DELPHI PROCESS • ORASECOM is an evolving organisation, still in its development stage • The 2012 planning process should predominantly focus on aligning and coordinating the sub-basin plans. • This ensures the reasonable and equitable use by making sure all the expressed water demands can be realised in the medium term. • In the longer term a basin wide perspective support shifts away from infrastructure towards more multidisciplinary approaches towards water resources management. • The planning process must include water resources quality monitoring and monitoring the implementation of operating rules. • There is a water / energy nexus in the basin.

9. PLANNING HORIZONS • Annual operating plans; Agreed annually, at the start of the hydrological year. Agreement on curtailments and flood responses. • Operational planning; Ensures that the current and planned infrastructure is operated to best effect, so that water can be supplied within penalty structures and assurance of supply appropriate to (and established by) each of the Parties. This would draw on existing obligations arising from the sub-basin arrangements as well as the country’s national planning processes. • Strategic planning; Securing the medium to long term (10-40 year) water and energy needs of the Member States. The Parties develop, longer-term sustainable development scenarios and options to meet the collective water and energy needs of the Member States. More integrated approach based on the extent of economic dependency.

10. INSTITUTIONAL AND GOVERNANCE ROLES

11. THE SECRETARIAT • the Secretariat is largely functioning as originally designed. • However the original design did not anticipate the volume of work that would be generated by the ICP supported projects. • The following additional positions are recommended based on the role and function of the organisation as a whole; • A communications specialist: • A water quality / water environmental quality monitoring expert:

12. STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION • The Road-map recommended a Two-Tier Participation Process for ORASECOM • National level in each Member State • Basin level platform across Orange-Senqu Basin

13. Each of the parties establishes its own national orasecom forum May be done differently in each Member State. Discusses national issues (NAPs) and national development objectives. Funded by the Party.

14. Each national forum nominates representatives to the basin wide forum 1-3 Nominations from each Member State. Attendance is funded by Parties approx R 20,000 -30,000/a. Stakeholders act as ‘observers’ but can discuss and participate openly. Attend ORASECOM Programme Committee – perhaps as separate meeting.

15. GWP “international stakeholders” are invited to participate Bodies with ‘basin wide’ interests, eg WWF, GWP, WESSA, Benguela Commission are invited to participate. They fund their own participation. Governed by a “Memorandum of Understanding”

16. STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION –RECOMMENDATIONS Consistent with the recommendations from the Roadmap (in order of importance); Parties should, in their stakeholder interactions, start profiling ORASECOM. National forums should be established in each Member State – funded by the Parties. A basin wide platform should be created made up of representatives from each National Forum – funded by Parties ‘International / Regional’ stakeholders should be invited to participate at their cost and governed by an MoU. This should interact with the ORASECOM Programme Committee and/or working groups.

17. THANK YOU