International River Basin Organizations Lost in Translation? Transboundary River Basin Governance Between Science and Policy

  • Susanne Schmeier
Part of the Springer Water book series (SPWA)


Successfully governing water resources requires sound scientific understanding of the watercourse and the challenges it is facing. This is particularly important in transboundary watercourses due to the additional layer of complexity added when water resources transcend the politico-administrative boundaries of nation states. River Basin Organizations (RBOs) established for addressing such transboundary challenges have, however, not always been successful in linking scientific knowledge to policy decisions concerning the sustainable development of the river basins. This has implications for the overall effectiveness of river basin governance and the long-term sustainable development of the watercourse. This chapter analyzes the science-policy-link in RBOs. It finds that the strength of the science-policy-link varies considerably across RBOs, depending not only on the scientific knowledge provided by the RBO but also on the design of the RBO as well as the mechanisms it provides to its members for addressing the basin’s challenges.


River Basin Water Resource Management River Basin Management Nile Perch Mekong River Commission 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Agreement on the Cooperation for the Sustainable Development of the Mekong River Basin, 5 April 1995, Chiang Mai, ThailandGoogle Scholar
  2. Bernauer T (1997) Managing international rivers. In: Young O (ed) Global governance. Drawing insights from the environmental experience. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 155–195Google Scholar
  3. Blatter J (2001) Integrative Symbole und regenerative Normen bei der Institutionenbildung. Erkenntnisse vom Gewässerschutz am Bodensee. Zeitschrift für Internationale Beziehungen 8(1):5–40Google Scholar
  4. Bucceri A, Fink M (2003) Case study Lake Victoria. In: ETH seminar: science and politics of international freshwater management 2003/04, Zürich, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  5. Cash D, Adger N, Berkes F, Garden P, Lebel L, Olsson P, Pritchard L, Young O (2003) Scale and cross-scale dynamics: governance and information in a multilevel world. Ecol Soc 11(2), online versionGoogle Scholar
  6. Cleaver F, Franks T (2008) Distilling or diluting? Negotiating the water research-policy interface. Water Altern 1(1):157–176Google Scholar
  7. Convention on the cooperation for the protection and sustainable use of the Danube River (Danube River Protection Convention), 29 June 1994, Sofia, BulgariaGoogle Scholar
  8. Convention on the establishment of the Lake Victoria fisheries organization (LVFO Convention), 30 June 1994, Kisumu, KenyaGoogle Scholar
  9. Convention on the Protection of the Rhine (Rhine Convention), 12 April 1999 in Bern, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  10. Dombrowsky I (2007) Conflict, cooperation and institutions in international water management: an economic analysis. Elgar, CheltenhamGoogle Scholar
  11. FAO (2013) The smartfish programme—implementation of a regional fisheries strategy for the eastern-southern Africa and indian ocean region.
  12. Friend R (2009) Fishing for influence: fisheries science and evidence in water resources development in the Mekong Basin. Water Altern 2(2):167–182Google Scholar
  13. Gupta A, Andresen S, Siebenhüner B, Biermann F (2012) Science networks. In: Biermann F, Pattberg P (eds) Global environmental governance revisited. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 69–93Google Scholar
  14. Hegger D, Lamers M, Van Zeijl-Rozema A, Dieperink C (2011) Knowledge co-production in climate change adaptation projects: what are the levers of action? In: Paper presented at the 2001 earth system governance conference, Fort Collins, CO, 17–20 May 2011Google Scholar
  15. ICPDR (2005) Guidelines for participants with consultative status and for observers to the ICPDR. Vienna, Austria, 26 April 2005Google Scholar
  16. ICPDR (2009) Water quality in the Danube River basin—2009. TNMN Yearbook 2009. Vienna, AustriaGoogle Scholar
  17. ICPR (2004) Rhein. Lachs. 2020, Koblenz, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  18. ICPR (2009a) Analysis of the state of knowledge on climate changes so far and on the impact of climate change on the water regime in the Rhine watershed. Literature evaluation. Report No. 174, Koblenz, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  19. ICPR (2009b) Masterplan Wanderfische. ICPR Report No. 179, Koblenz, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  20. ICPR (2011) Study of scenarios for the discharge pattern of the Rhine. Report No. 188, Koblenz, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  21. ICPR (2013a) Aktueller Kenntnisstand über mögliche Auswirkungen von Änderungen des Abflussgeschehens und der Wassertemperatur auf das Ökosystem Rhein und mögliche Handlungsperspektiven. Report No. 204, Koblenz, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  22. IPCR (2013b) Lachs kann an rund 480 Hindernissen im Rheineinzugsgebiet wieder flussaufwärts wandern. Koblenz, Germany,
  23. Koetz T, Farrell K, Bridgewater P (2011) Building better science-policy interfaces for international environmental governance: assessing potential within the intergovernmental platform for biodiversity and ecosystem services. Int Environ Agreem. doi: 10.1007/s10784-011-9152-z (online version)Google Scholar
  24. LVFO (2005a) The institutional structure and programs of the organization. Entebbe, Uganda 2005Google Scholar
  25. LVFO (2005b) National guidelines for beach management units. Entebbe, UgandaGoogle Scholar
  26. LVFO (2005c) Implementation and financing plan for the strategy to reduce the impact of HIV/Aids on fishing communities—2005–2015. Entebbe, UgandaGoogle Scholar
  27. Marty F (2001) Managing international rivers. Problems, politics and institutions. Peter Lang, BernGoogle Scholar
  28. McDonnell R (2008) Challenges for integrated water resources management: how do we provide the knowledge to support truly integrated thinking? Int J Water Resour Dev 24(1):131–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. McNie E (2007) Reconciling the supply of scientific information with user demands: an analysis of the problem and review of the literature. Environ Sci Policy 10:17–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Miles E, Underdal A, Andresen S, Wettestad J, Skjaerseth J, Carlin E (eds) (2002) Environmental regime effectiveness. Confronting theory with evidence. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  31. Molle F (2004) Nirvana concepts, narratives and policy models: insights from the water sector. Water Altern 1(1):131–156Google Scholar
  32. MRC (2010a) MRC strategic environmental assessment of hydropower on the Mekong mainstream. Final Report, Vientiane, Lao PDR, MRCSGoogle Scholar
  33. MRC (2010b) State of the Basin Report 2010. Vientiane, Lao PDRGoogle Scholar
  34. MRC (2010c) The Mekong River report card on water quality. Vientiane, Lao PDRGoogle Scholar
  35. MRC (2010d) Report on the 2008 biomonitoring survey of the lower Mekong River and selected tributaries, MRC technical paper No. 27. Vientiane, Lao PDRGoogle Scholar
  36. MRC (2011a) Procedures for notification, prior consultation and agreement (PNPCA). Proposed xayaburi dam project—Mekong River. Prior consultation project review report. 24 March 2011, Vientiane, Lao PDRGoogle Scholar
  37. MRC (2011b) Procedures for notification, prior consultation and agreement form of reply to prior consultation—replying state: The socialist republic of Vietnam, submitted to the special MRC joint committee meeting. 19 April 2011, Vientiane, Lao PDRGoogle Scholar
  38. Poff L, Allan D, Palmer M, Hart D, Richter B, Arthington A, Rogers K, Meyer J, Stanford J (2003) River flows and water wars: emerging science for environmental decision making. Frontiers Ecol 1(6):298–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Quevauviller P, Balabanis P, Fragakis C, Wydert M, Oliver M, Kaschl A, Arnold G, Kroll A, Galbiati L, Zaldivar J, Bidoglio G (2005) Science-policy integration needs in support of the implementation of the EU water framework directive. Environ Sci Policy 8:203–2011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Radio Free Asia (RFA) (2013) Laos confirms ‘preparatory’ work on controversial Dam Project, 31 July 2013Google Scholar
  41. Roux D, Rogers K, Biggs H, Ashton P, Sergeant A (2006) Bridging the science-management divide: moving from unidirectional knowledge transfer to knowledge interfacing and sharing. Ecol Soc 11(1), online versionGoogle Scholar
  42. Schmeier S (2013) Governing international watercourses. River Basin organizations and the sustainable governance of internationally shared rivers and lakes. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  43. Van den Hove S (2007) A rational for science-policy interfaces. Futures 39(7):1–19Google Scholar
  44. Vientiane Times (2013a) Work powers ahead on Xayaburi Dam, 23 January 2013Google Scholar
  45. Vientiane Times (2013b) MRC countries not opposed to Xayaburi Dam, 25 January 2013Google Scholar
  46. Vogel C, Moser S, Kasperson R, Dabelko G (2007) Linking vulnerability, adaptation, and resilience science to practice: pathways, players and partnerships. Glob Environ Change 17:349–364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Weller P, Popovici M (2011) Danube River basin management—rationale and results. How to link science, as the basis for policy. River Syst 20(1–2):103–109Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Deutsche Gesellschaft für internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ)EschbornGermany

Personalised recommendations