Edit Case Study: International Joint Development of The La Plata River Basin

You do not have permission to edit this page, for the following reasons:

The action you have requested is limited to users in one of the groups: Users, Administrators / Sysops, Volunteer Administrators, confirmed-user.
The action you have requested is limited to users in one of the groups: confirmed-user, editors, Administrators / Sysops, Volunteer Administrators.

You do not have permission to edit this page, for the following reasons:

The action you have requested is limited to users in one of the groups: Users, Administrators / Sysops, Volunteer Administrators, confirmed-user.
The action you have requested is limited to users in one of the groups: confirmed-user, editors, Administrators / Sysops, Volunteer Administrators.

Descriptive terms, facts, and summary for this case.

Each of these checkboxes or numerical values are designed to support semantic search. Please provide thoughtful answers that relate closely to your case and would assist others in searching for this case or common elements between cases. You can elaborate on these responses in other "free text" sections of your case. If you add comments to numerical fields in this page, they won't be recorded or displayed properly.

Water Use:	Indicate 3 – 5 uses of water most important to this case study:
	Select allSelect none Agriculture or Irrigation Domestic/Urban Supply Fisheries - wild Fisheries - farmed Hydropower Generation Industry - consumptive use Industry - non-consumptive use Livestock Mining/Extraction support Other Ecological Services Recreation or Tourism
Land Use:	Indicate 2 – 5 land use terms most important to this case study:
	Select allSelect none agricultural- cropland and pasture agricultural- confined livestock operations conservation lands industrial use mining operations forest land rangeland urban urban- high density religious/cultural sites
Climate:	Select any climate descriptors that may describe relevant climate types present in the case study region
	Select allSelect none Moist tropical (Köppen A-type) Semi-arid/steppe (Köppen B-type) Arid/desert (Köppen B-type) Humid mid-latitude (Köppen C-type) Continental (Köppen D-type) Moist Monsoon Dry-summer Dry-winter cold-climate (permafrost, tundra, polar) temperate alpine

Case Population: Total population for this case -- this could be watershed population, a population of a geographic area, or a combination of these types of statistics -- How many people were/are affected? million

Total Area : Total area for this case -- this might be a sum of watersheds/aquifers recharge area/ or a simple geographic area km²

Map Location Choose a location to place a marker that will represent this case on a map. You can enter the coordinates directly, or click on the map, or enter an address and choose "Look up coordinates." The coordinates will be stored when you save this page.

This page can't load Google Maps correctly.

Do you own this website?

This is the end of the Case Description section. Consider previewing or saving your changes and continue to other sections using the tabs above.

Issues are the concerns of groups of stakeholders within the context of the water basin and the case study. Some issues may be extremely significant, and some may be peripheral to your particular perspective or framework.

Each issue has a specific group of stakeholders. Stakeholders are organizations or powerful individuals who may have input into the process or may bear the results of management decisions in the water basin. The stakeholders for a given issue are those who have a primary concern in its outcome.

Issue:
Provide a short description of your issue: (eg: “ensuring adequate flows for specific ecosystem services”)

Description:

Natural/Societal/Political Domain Variables:

Water Quantity Water Quality Ecosystems Governance Assets Values and Norms	allocation, competitive use, climate influence/uncertainty
	quality for a given purpose, quality from the viewpoint of a stakeholder
	ecosystem services, biodiversity, ecological communities, environmental considerations
	institutions, entities, legal frameworks
	specific human or economic assets
	social value or cultural norm

Stakeholder Types:
Select allSelect none Federated state/territorial/provincial government Sovereign state/national/federal government Local Government Supranational union Non-legislative governmental agency Development/humanitarian interest Environmental interest Industry/Corporate Interest Community or organized citizens Cultural Interest

The greatest value of any case study is the ability to identify transferable knowledge, particularly identifying the context and usefulness of this knowledge. Select a few questions from the question bank and provide a brief synopsis on the contributions this case study makes to providing more insight or answering this question.

Key Question:

Question Categories:

Question:

None What kinds of water treaties or agreements between countries can provide sufficient structure and stability to ensure enforceability but also be flexible and adaptable given future uncertainties? What mechanisms beyond simple allocation can be incorporated into transboundary water agreements to add value and facilitate resolution? What considerations can be given to incorporating collaborative adaptive management (CAM)? What efforts have the parties made to review and adjust a solution or decision over time in light of changing conditions? How can packages or options that link issues creatively or build on possible technology innovations be employed to create non-zero sum choices within negotiations that include water resources? How can mutual trust amongst riparians be nurtured? What actions erode that trust?

Description

Key Question:

Question Categories:

Question:

Description

Because multiple cases can require an understanding of the same basic facts about

water features such as a basin (watershed), minor rivers, lakes, groundwater resources, etc;
projects, such as built infrastructure or organizational initiatives (such as a commission); and
agreements and treaties

each case can be linked to new or existing articles containing background information on these topics. This way, individual natural features, projects and initiatives, or agreements do not need to be explained in great detail in the body of every case.

If an article exists, you can enter the title (e.g.: Ganges River, Mekong River Commission, Glen Canyon Dam, Indus Water Treaty), and it will be automatically linked to the case study. If the article does not exist, a new page will automatically be created for the feature. You will be able to see/edit that page by clicking the link when viewing your saved case study.

We suggest looking at the existing list of features, projects, and agreements to see if relevant sections already exist for your case.

Water Features, such as rivers, wetlands, or lakes:

Water Features

La Plata River

Riparian States/Countries:

Relevant Riparians

Water Infrastructure Projects or Organizational Initiatives:

Water Projects

Itaipu Dam

Agreements or Treaties:

Agreement or Treaty

Treaty of the River Plata Basin

Image Upload - open the image upload page in a new tab:
Upload a File View all Files
You can find or upload a file and then return here.

To insert an image in your text, type: [[File:filename.jpg]]

[[File:Laplata.jpg]]
Figure 1. Map of the La Plata River Basin <ref name = "TFDD 2012">Product of the Transboundary Freshwater Dispute Database, Department of Geosciences, Oregon State University.  Additional information about the TFDD can be found at: http://www.transboundarywaters.orst.edu </ref>

== Background ==

The [[La Plata River]] basin encompasses an area of 3.2 million square kilometers and is among the five largest international rivers basins in the world. <ref name = "United Nations 1978" /> It includes territory in Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Paraguay, and Uruguay, comprises the Parana, Paraguay and Uruguay River systems and makes up the largest wetland in the world-the Pantanal. <ref name = "Gleick 1993" /> The basin is the life sustenance for much of the agricultural and industrial sectors of the riparian states and has become a source of alternative energy and economic possibility.
 
The Basin's five riparian states have a history of cooperation and joint management of the watershed, and have stressed the river's binding them to each other. Bolivia, Paraguay and Uruguay’s agriculture economies depend on the basin as crucially as the industrial sectors of Argentina and Brazil. Large amounts of grain, beef, wool, timber and some manufacturing goods are exported from this region to other parts of the world. <ref name = "Elhance 1999" > Elhance, A. P. (1999). Hydropolitics in the 3rd World, Conflict and Cooperation in International River Basins. Washington DC: United States Institute of Peace. </ref> [http://ocid.nacse.org/tfdd/tfdddocs/319ENG.pdf The 1969 La Plata River Basin Treaty] <ref "International Freshwater Treaties Database 2012">Product of the Transboundary Freshwater Dispute Database, Department of Geosciences, Oregon State University.  Additional information about the TFDD can be found at:http://ocid.nacse.org/tfdd/tfdddocs/319ENG.pdf</ref>, the umbrella treaty and first to which all of the riparians are signatories, provides a framework for joint management, development and preservation of the basin. Subsequent multilateral and bilateral treaties outline the specifics of economic investment, hydro-electric development and transportation enhancement.

Following the 1969 multilateral treaty, bilateral hydroelectric development opportunities were explored which gave source to the construction of dams and alternative power plants along the Parana. Today there are 130 dams along the River, two of which are widely known, the Itaipu and the Yacureta. [[Itaipu Dam|Itaipu]] is the largest hydroelectric project in the world and a result of a 1973 bilateral agreement between Paraguay and Brazil. The hydroelectric dam cost the two governments and other international participants US$15 billion and 20 years to construct. The generating capacity is 26,000mW and supplies 26% of all of the electricity for Brazil and 78% for Paraguay with zero emissions.

The political and environmental dimensions of the [[Itaipu Dam|Itaipu]] make for an interesting case of cooperation over a shared water resource. The land, where the Itaipu dam now sits, was once a source of great controversy between Brazil and Paraguay. Each country declared rights and legal authority over the Guairá Falls, which lies on the border of both countries and to which both claimed ownership and control. In 1957, Brazil, who believed the Falls to be within their borders and who wanted to invest in the hydroelectric power of the Falls, unilaterally took military control over the region. After five years of dispute and disagreement, Brazil and Paraguay finally negotiated the terms of the [[Itaipu Dam|Itaipu dam]]. In addition to providing electricity to the two countries, the proposed project would submerge Guairá Falls <ref name = "Elhance 1999" /> thus, marking an end to the border dispute.

This conflict negotiation and cooperation between Brazil and Paraguay had ripple effects into areas of conservation and preservation. When the environmental concerns around the construction of the Itaipu basin came to the forefront, the two countries implemented two joint projects, the Gralha Azul and the Mymba Kuera, to minimize the effects of reservoir flooding on the regions ecology, deforestation in the region and moved the wildlife most affected by the dam to biological reserves. <ref name = "American University Trade and Environment Database 2004">  American University Trade and Environment data base (2004). Itaipu Dam. Available online at http://www.american.edu/TED/itaipu.htm. </ref>

[http://ocid.nacse.org/tfdd/tfdddocs/365SPA.pdf The Yacyreta Treaty] <ref name="Yacyreta Treaty 2012"> Product of the Transboundary Freshwater Dispute Database, Department of Geosciences, Oregon State University. Additional information about the TFDD can be found at: http://ocid.nacse.org/tfdd/tfdddocs/365SPA.pdf </ref>, an agreement between Argentina and Paraguay, to construct a hydroelectric dam downstream from the [[Itaipu Dam|Itaipu]], has not been deemed as successful in its implementation. The treaty was hastily signed in December 1973, very soon after the [[Itaipu Dam|Itaipu]] and was similar in content (generated power to be divided evenly between the two nations), except for the Yacyreta allowed for either country to sell power surpluses to a third party. <ref name = "Da Rosa 1983" > Da Rosa, J. E. (1983). Economics, politics, and hydroelectric power: the Parana River Basin. Latin American Research Review, VXVIII (3), pp. 77-107 </ref> This contingency has since caused great confusion and complicated the construction.
 
The dam, from its inception, has become a "monument to corruption." The project has been unable to fill the reservoir to planned levels, and is operating at two-thirds of its capacity because of the environmental repercussions the system would incur if it was at 100% capacity. Already, US$1.3 billion worth of non-generated energy has been lost due to delays. In addition, the indigenous populations along the river and beside the dam do not feel like they were part of the planning process, were compensated for losses of their own land or believe they will be allocated power from the hydroelectric plant. At the moment, neither the Paraguayan nor the Argentine governments have the financial resources to allocate for improvements to the construction or to pay remittance to the 4000 families whose lives and environments have been affected by the construction of the dam.

Many bilateral treaties and hydroelectric projects have come out of the 1969 multilateral agreement, however, the first multilateral economic investment that joins all five riparian states and tests the framework of the [http://ocid.nacse.org/tfdd/tfdddocs/319ENG.pdf La Plata Basin Treaty]<ref name = "International Freshwater Treaties Database 2012"/> is termed “Hydrovia”. The Hydrovia is a proposed river transportation project that will dredge and straighten major portions of the Paraná and the Paraguay, including the portions of the river that lie in the Pantanal wetlands. The initial backers of the proposal, dubbed "Hydrovia" ("waterway" in Spanish and Portuguese), were the governments of the [[La Plata River|La Plata]] basin states who met in 1988 to discuss the plans for the project and out of which was borne the Intergovernmental Commission on the Paraná-Paraguay Hydrovia. The project would allow year-round barge transportation (current conditions only allow for barges during the three dry months) and would open up a major transport thoroughfare for land-locked sections of the riparian states. The proposed waterway would make it possible for barge ships to take the 2000 mile trip from Argentina and Uruguay ports of the Atlantic to landlocked Bolivia and Paraguay <ref name = "American University Trade and Environment Database 1999" > American University Trade and Environment data base. (1999). Hydrovia Canal Plan and Environment. 
Available online at http://www.american.edu/TED/hidrovia.htm </ref> Environmentalists and those whose livelihoods depend on traditional economies have expressed trepidation at the project.

== The Problem ==

A cooperative management body has been in place on the [[La Plata River|La Plata]] basin since 1969 and is generally considered a successful and productive organization. At the same time, 'Hydrovia' is the largest project for navigational river development proposed to date. Its size and possible impacts on the economies and environments of the basin states are beginning to strain the cooperative nature of basin management. The biodiversity of the world's largest wetland, the Pantanal, could be strongly affected by the construction of the waterway. Covering over 53,760 square miles in Brazil, Paraguay and Bolivia, the Pantanal is home to 650 species of birds, 240 varieties of fish and more than 90,000 types of plants.<ref name = "Bascheck & Hegglin 2004">Bascheck, B. and Hegglin, M. (2004). Plata/Parana River Basin, A Case Study. Swiss Federal Institute for Environmental Science and Technology.</ref> Opponents of the project point to loss of biodiversity and significant changes in the hydrology of the Pantanal as reasons why the project should be avoided. The Pantanal currently decreases the occurrence of floods and droughts in the downstream area <ref name = "Lammers et al. 1994">Lammers, O., Moore, D. and Preakle, K. (1994). Considering the Hidrovia: a preliminary report on the status of the proposed Paraguay/Parana waterway project. Working Paper 3. Berkley CA: International Rivers Network, July.</ref>, maintains the current ecosystem and hydrology there and is the life sustenance of the people, animals and wildlife along its banks.

== Attempts at Conflict Management ==

The [http://ocid.nacse.org/tfdd/tfdddocs/319ENG.pdf La Plata Basin Treaty of 1969]<ref name = "International Freshwater Treaties Database 2012"/> provides an umbrella framework for several bilateral treaties between the riparian states and a direction for joint development of the basin. The treaty requires open transportation and communication along the river and its tributaries, and prescribes cooperation in education, health, and management of 'non-water' resources (e.g., soil, forest, flora, and fauna). The foreign ministers of the riparian states provide the policy direction, and a standing Intergovernmental Coordination Committee is responsible for ongoing administration. 
Basin states agree to identify and prioritize cooperative projects, and to provide the technical and legal structure to see to their implementation, illustrated best by the 130 dams along the Parana, the construction of the world's largest hydroelectric project, Itaipu, and successive development, infrastructure and transportation projects. The treaty also has some limitations, notably the lack of a supra-legal body to manage the treaty's provisions. The necessity to go through each country's legal system for individual projects has resulted in some time lag and lack of implementation. 
The 1969 treaty's success has been in the areas of transportation and cooperation, so it is not altogether surprising that the 'Hydrovia' project has been forwarded to the planning stages and that many multilateral and bilateral treaties came out of the [http://ocid.nacse.org/tfdd/tfdddocs/319ENG.pdf 1969 La Plata Basin Treaty]<ref name = "International Freshwater Treaties Database 2012"/>. The first meeting of the backers of the project was in April of 1988, out of which the Intergovernmental Commission on the Paraná-Paraguay Hydrovia was formed.

== Outcome ==

As positions between supporters and opponents of the project have sharpened, these positions are based on very little information. The Inter-American Development Bank and the United Nations Development Program, in 1997, helped finance a technical and environmental feasibility study by the Intergovernmental Commission on the Paraná-Paraguay Hydrovia. The study included dredging, rock removal and structural channeling. Through motivation by independent technical critiques and environmental and social action networks the initial studies were discredited. As a result, the future of the Hydrovia is still uncertain. New studies were commissioned by Andean Development Corporation through the Intergovernmental Commission and were completed in February 2004, but the results have yet to be diffused.

For each case, multiple contributors will have the opportunity to add his/her own analysis/synthesis or insights into the specific case, and these nuanced, contextual additions will be presented together in the case to provide multiple viewpoints. Because of this, each contributor will need to both add and annotate their contributions to this section to highlight major points and also receive credit for the original thoughts.

ASIs already associated with this Study

Lessons learned for cooperation between riparians and sectors

ASIs on this study that you have already created

You have not added any ASI sections that are linked to this Case Study.

Please use this section to analyze interactions between issues and stakeholders, synthesize information presented, draw conclusions, highlight important lessons learned, or to provide insight into the knowledge/wisdom from this case can be transferred to other settings.

Add an ASI

Provide a focused summary to facilitate case organization/searches. The organization for summaries is meant to create short, information-dense documents. You should complete this section after preparing the rest of your case study.

We suggest the case summary is kept under 300 words and touches on the following topics: major issues addressed, important stakeholders, major points of analysis/synthesis/insights (especially if there are multiple contributors of insight to the case), opportunities for transferrable knowledge. This is not meant to be fully comprehensive, but simply provide enough information to a reader to indicate whether or not s/he is interested in reading further.

The [[La Plata River]] basin encompasses an area of 3.2 million square kilometers and is among the five largest international rivers basins in the world.<ref name = "United Nations 1978">United Nations. (1978). Register of international rivers, Water Supply Management, 2 (1). New York: Pergamon Press. </ref>It includes territory in Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Paraguay, and Uruguay, comprises the Parana, Paraguay and Uruguay River systems and makes up the largest wetland in the world-the Pantanal. <ref name = "Gleick 1993">Gleick, P.H., ed. (1993). Water in Crisis. A Guide to the World's Fresh Water Resources, New York : Oxford University Press, pp. 13-24.</ref>  
The Basin's five riparian states have a history of cooperation and joint management of the watershed, and have stressed the river's binding them to each other. The [http://ocid.nacse.org/tfdd/tfdddocs/319ENG.pdf 1969 La Plata River Basin Treaty]<ref name = "International Freshwater Treaties Database 2012">Product of the Transboundary Freshwater Dispute Database, Department of Geosciences, Oregon State University.  Additional information about the TFDD can be found at:http://ocid.nacse.org/tfdd/tfdddocs/319ENG.pdf</ref>, the umbrella treaty and first to which all of the riparians are signatories, provides a framework for joint management, development and preservation of the basin. Many bilateral treaties and hydroelectric projects have come out of the 1969 multilateral agreement, however, the first multilateral economic investment that joins all five riparian states and tests the framework of the La Plata Basin Treaty is termed "Hydrovia.'

Hydrovia is the largest project for navigational river development proposed to date. Its size and possible impacts on the economies and environments of the basin states are beginning to strain the cooperative nature of basin management. The biodiversity of the world's largest wetland, the Pantanal, could be strongly affected by the construction of the waterway

The Inter-American Development Bank and the United Nations Development Program, in 1997, helped finance a technical and environmental feasibility study by the Intergovernmental Commission on the Paraná-Paraguay Hydrovia. Through motivation by independent technical critiques and environmental and social action networks the initial studies were discredited. As a result, the future of the Hydrovia is still uncertain. New studies were commissioned by Andean Development Corporation through the Intergovernmental Commission and were completed in February 2004, but the results have yet to be diffused.

Topic Tags

Help others find this case study by providing topic tags -- either keywords or short phrases without any punctuation.

Each entry utilizes autocomplete to find similar words/phrases. You can also add a new tag keyword or phrase.
You can add as many as you'd like -- we suggest between 1 and 5.
You shouldn't add tags that are the same as article titles linked to cases or values that have been added by selecting check boxes elsewhere in this case -- those keywords have already been recorded!

Add Keywords or phrases (no special characters or punctuation)

References Please list all reference here. use (name date) parenthetical citations in relevant text areas.

Link Text

Link Address

Description

The contributing author, other editors, and admins can all provide public case review. Checking any of the boxes below will place a notice at the beginning of the case

To enhance the ability of a contributor to improve a case, please answer the yes/no questions below. For each "yes" (checked) answer, you should initiate a discussion on the case study discussion page to explain the improvements required.

The purpose of this review is to both encourage users to continually improve cases and also to alert readers that there are aspects of the case that could be improved. Any editor/contributor may remove an alert (by unchecking the related box) after the issue has been addressed.

Completeness

Are 1 or more sections empty?
does the case/page need more formatting or copyediting help?
Are 1 or more sections incomplete?
Does the case/page need additional or better references?
Does the case/page need more internal links (to AquaPedia Pages)?
Does this case/page need more external links (to relevant external sources)?

Content

Is content out of date? or, are there recent developments that should be addressed by the case?
Is there a dispute about the accuracy of the content?
Is there a need to represent additional points of view?

Provide a summary of the type/purpose of updates you have made. This summary is displayed on the "History" tab for the page and is not part of the page as it is viewed:

This is a minor edit Watch this page

Cancel