Chapter 3. Functional Comparison of the International Legal Water Regimes in
3.3. Conclusion of the Functional Comparison
As we have seen from the plethora of comparisons of these two water regimes, there are numerous differences in their different functions. One main difference is the different focus of each respective function. For instance, the function of agricultural development has divergent emphases in these two regimes. In the Mekong water regime, the agricultural function focuses on the relationship between agriculture and people’s livelihood, while the agricultural function in the Rhine water regime focuses on agricultural pollution control and aims to achieve a good status of the water bodies.
One reason for these discrepancies lies in the Mekong water regime’s pluralist aims.
The MRC is the only regional organization based on instruments governed by a legal framework (namely, the 1995 Mekong Agreement) that focuses on the Mekong River and its water resources, and it assumes the task of furthering the Mekong River’s sustainable development. Therefore, the MRC is not only responsible for environmental missions in the Mekong River basin, but also social and economic development. Consequently, functions of the MRC also reflect the pluralist aim of the Mekong water regime and do not merely focus on environmental protection.
Comparatively, the focus of the Rhine water regime is on environmental protection, which aims to improve the water bodies’ status and the related ecosystem, and hence the different functions of Rhine water regimes all serve this aim.
Another reason for the divergence in these two regimes is the different degree of development of the two river basins. The Mekong River basin is a typical developing region. Most of the riparian countries are developing countries and a large number of residents in this region still live in poverty. Therefore, the primary concern in the Mekong River basin is still the economic growth, which is related to local people’s livelihoods, national development and regional stability. Environmental issues here can be an important and beneficial aspect when considering how to foster the economic growth, but they are not a priority above and beyond economic growth. In contrast, the Rhine River basin is a more developed region, and the riparian countries are mostly developed countries. Economic growth is still important but not the primary goal for this region. Environmental protection is becoming increasingly more important and is considered an issue that will affect the future sustainability of the region. The residents in this region are mostly living in good conditions, and are more concerned with “environmental comfortableness” than how the environment affects
their livelihoods. Against this background, the Rhine water regime pays more attention to river environmental protection and water resource conservation. This background is also a very suitable basis for implementation of the related instruments.
Another major discrepancy becomes apparent when comparing the implementation of the instruments of these two regimes. The implementation of the relevant instruments in the Mekong water regime is not so effective. On the contrary, in the Rhine water regime, relevant instruments can be implemented more effectively. The reason for this discrepancy is the different legal basis of these two regimes. The legal basis for the Mekong water regime is the 1995 Mekong Agreement, which is also its only legally binding basis. It is a highly vague and abstract framework for the sustainable development of the Mekong River basin with only general regulations. Hence, although it is legally binding, it still can hardly guide the relevant instruments to improve their implementation. In comparison, the legal basis of the Rhine water regime is more comprehensive and effective, consisting of three main legal instruments, namely the Rhine Convention, the EU WFD, and the EU Floods Directive. These instruments are all legally binding and have effective implementation mechanisms. Therefore, they can provide a good stage for the implementation of the Rhine water regime’s different functions. Additionally, with the exception of the ICPR, the European Union is also a powerful regional organization that is devoting a series of efforts to the implementation of the Rhine water regime’s functions.
A number of regional characteristics can also affect the functions of the water regime.
For instance, the local climate can be a typical element that could affect the regional water regime’s functions. In the Mekong River basin, the local climate belongs to the
“tropical monsoon” category, which causes obvious dry seasons and wet seasons for the Mekong River basin and hence regularly causes floods and drought. The Mekong water regime’s flood and drought function is therefore very crucial for regional sustainable development, and should focus mainly on the management of floods and droughts due to their certainty. The local climate in the Rhine River basin is relatively mild, and normally would not bring serious floods and droughts. This function thus places greater emphasis on flood prevention and low water control.
In summary, even at the surface level, the functions of these two water regimes have the same name, but in fact they differ to an extensive degree in terms of their content
because of the different aims of the regimes, different degrees of regional development, different legal basis of their water regimes, and also their differing regional characteristics. All in all, the implementation of the regime’s functions in the Rhine River basin is more effective than in the Mekong River basin, from which we can conclude that, despite their differences, the latter could learn a great deal from the former.