Epistemic community in the mekong river commission a study of the MRC epistemic community on hydropower development in the mainstream mekong river

EPISTEMIC COMMUNITY IN THE
MEKONG RIVER COMMISSION
A study of the MRC epistemic community on
hydropower development in the
mainstream Mekong river

M.Sc. Thesis by Luu Thi Tang
Date: 21st August, 2017
Water Systems and
Global Change Group


Frontpage images: The author re-designs based on the images retrieved from the internet (see reference)

“You have to take care of both economic development of the people by catering for the livelihood and social
issues for the people also considering to minimize the impacts on the environment” (E1, Interview)

“Come and see the Mekong before it …. gets completely dammed!” (E2, Interview)

“I also think it can be done too fast … the pace of development … scares me sometimes because I don’t think
those countries who are fairly new to hydropower … they don’t have the experience that you gain over
decades of understanding how the risks are arise and how best to manage those ” (E3, Interview)

“If you use the whole system then the reproduction fails, the migration fails so the whole resilience of the
system is degraded to a level where it cannot sustain sufficiently any longer ... Common agenda first would be
a better political slogan … the nature is the basis for the long term survival and benefit of the people” (E4,
Interview)

“The Mekong is a very large and resilient river system … it adjusts it adapts so some developments of it will
not kill it” (E5, Interview)

EPISTEMIC COMMUNITY IN THE MEKONG RIVER
COMMISSION
A study of the MRC epistemic community on hydropower
development in the mainstream Mekong river

Master Thesis Water Systems and Global Change Group in partial fulfillment of the degree
of Master of Science in Environmental Science master program at Wageningen University,
the Netherlands

Name: Lư u Thị Tặ ng

Date: 21st August, 2017

Supervisors:
Erik van Slobbe
Water Systems and Global Change

Jos Timmerman
Climate Change and Adaptive Land and
Water Management


Epistemic community in the Mekong River Commission

Preface
It is an interesting journey to do a Master thesis. At some moments, it was very difficult to find out
what to do next. I even got lost many times. But I have learnt that time, hard-working and enough
thinking are crucial for the information and understanding to transfer into ideas. Though sometimes
it was frustrating, it was worthy to start this journey. To future students who are going to do a

Master thesis, I would like to say believe on the pathway you choose, keep going and you will arrive
where you deserve to be.
I would like to thank my thesis supervisors Erik van Slobbe and Jos Timmerman who have been
supporting me throughout the research and encouraging me to keep on going.
I would like to thank the experts who responded to my invitations and agreed to do the interview,
especially the experts who validated the list and introduced me to other people. Your sharing plays
a crucial part, not only contribute to my research findings, but also broaden my mind and beliefs.
I would like to thank friends, colleagues and other fellow students, especially Dzung, Long and Mark
who helped me doing the interview tests and gave valuable comments.
Everyone has given me the best piece of their help; the rest of the performance totally depends on
my capability.


Epistemic community in the Mekong River Commission

Summary
The cooperation between riparian countries in the Mekong region through the Mekong River
Commission is ineffective. Thus, efforts aimed at solving transboundary problems caused by
hydropower development remain fragmented and ineffective. Main reasons are related to the
knowledge factor including a lack of common understanding between key decision makers and
insufficient human and technical resources in the region. Several authors suggest epistemic
communities could help to generate common perceptions between actors. Even though some
authors have recognized the existence of the MRC epistemic community, the understanding about
its characteristics is limited.
Therefore, the research first aims to fill in the gap by discovering the main features of the MRC
epistemic community: shared causal beliefs and shared policy goals. This will contribute to the
understanding the role of the knowledge factor in international water regimes. Based on that,
recommendations are formulated to improve cooperation in the region and facilitate a better
decision-making process.
Literature review, social network analysis and experts interview are used to reach the

abovementioned aims. First, roles and activities of the MRC are elucidated using mostly documents
published on the MRC website, following by the identification of the membership and potential key
experts of the network. Next, the causal beliefs and policy goals are retrieved from the key expert
interviews.
Findings of this research have shown that the MRC experts community resembles a discipline group
rather than an epistemic community in Haas definition. The community is dominated by
international experts. The experts come from multi disciplines with many experts having
backgrounds of more than one discipline. They share causal beliefs and policy goals regarding
hydropower development on the mainstream Mekong river to a limited extent. However, they
disagree on many topics. Furthermore, the linkages between the causal beliefs and policy goals of
the community are fragmented. Therefore, the MRC epistemic community either does not exist or
exists only to a very limited extent.
The most important reason to explain for the findings is the lack of common understanding on the
regional basic knowledge. This leads to incoherent policy advice among the experts. Therefore,
policy makers prefer to solve the problems based on their own interests and political merits rather
than experts’ advice. An improvement of education and investment in basic research in the region
are recommended to overcome this drawback. This will require the shared commitment of the
member countries to cooperate for the long-term benefits of the whole region.
Keywords: Mekong River Commission, Mekong river, Mekong region, Mekong basin, epistemic
community, international water regime, hydropower, hydropower development, transboundary
water regime, water governance.


Epistemic community in the Mekong River Commission

TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of figures and tables ..............................................................................................1
List of abbreviations ....................................................................................................2
Chapter 1. Introduction ...............................................................................................3
1.1. Background information...................................................................................................3

1.1.1.
1.1.2.
1.1.3.

Background and general issues ........................................................................................................3
Problems related to hydropower development ................................................................................4
The cooperation in the region through the Mekong regime ............................................................5

1.2. Literature review on the epistemic community in the Mekong region................................7
1.3. Problem statement and research objectives .....................................................................8
1.4. Conceptual framework .....................................................................................................8
1.4.1.
1.4.2.
1.4.3.
1.4.4.

Conceptualization of Haas’ epistemic community definition ...........................................................8
The role of ECs in international regime formation ...........................................................................9
Role of ECs in international water regime formation .....................................................................10
Identifying an EC.............................................................................................................................10

1.5. Research questions ........................................................................................................ 12

Chapter 2. Methodology ............................................................................................ 13
2.1. Reasons ......................................................................................................................... 13
2.2. Literature review and social network analysis ................................................................. 14
2.3. Interview experts ........................................................................................................... 15
2.4. Interview data analysis................................................................................................... 16

Chapter 3. Results ..................................................................................................... 18

3.1. Literature review ........................................................................................................... 18
3.1.1.
3.1.2.

Role of the MRC in the hydropower development ..........................................................................18
Potential network of the MRC EC ...................................................................................................20

3.2. Interviews...................................................................................................................... 21
3.2.1.
3.2.2.
3.2.3.
3.2.4.

Impacts of hydropower development .............................................................................................21
Decision-making process ................................................................................................................28
Mitigation strategies ......................................................................................................................31
Role and future development of hydropower .................................................................................34

Chapter 4. Discussion ................................................................................................ 36
4.1. The characteristics of the MRC EC ................................................................................... 36
4.1.1.
4.1.2.
4.1.3.

Causal beliefs on hydropower development...................................................................................36
Policy goals on hydropower development ......................................................................................40
The characteristics of the MRC epistemic community ....................................................................44

4.2. An examination of the results in relation to existing research.......................................... 46
4.3. Reflection on the research performed ............................................................................ 47

4.3.1.
4.3.2.

Limitations ......................................................................................................................................47
Values .............................................................................................................................................49

Chapter 5. Conclusions and recommendations ........................................................... 51
5.1. Main conclusions ........................................................................................................... 51
5.2. Recommendations ......................................................................................................... 53

References ................................................................................................................ 55
Annexes .................................................................................................................... 59


Epistemic community in the Mekong River Commission

List of figures and tables
Table 1. Summary of Mekong regime (Source: Browder & Ortolano, 2000, p.530) ...........................................6
Table 2. Distinguish between epistemic communities and other groups (Source: Haas P., 1992) ...................11
Table 3. List of topics .........................................................................................................................................16
Table 4. Rules on emotional icons .....................................................................................................................17
Table 5. Rules of assessment .............................................................................................................................17
Table 6. The ISH teams (Source: MRC, 2017) ....................................................................................................19
Table 7. Opinions on sediment transport ..........................................................................................................22
Table 8. Opinions on Fish and aquatic species ..................................................................................................23
Table 9. Opinions on Flow regime .....................................................................................................................24
Table 10. Opinions on Water quality .................................................................................................................26
Table 11. Opinions on Uncertainties on the impacts ........................................................................................27
Table 12. Opinions on Factors influence decision-making process ...................................................................28
Table 13. Opinions on Role of different stakeholders .......................................................................................30

Table 14. Opinions on Technical strategies .......................................................................................................31
Table 15. Opinions on Strategies related to effected communities ..................................................................32
Table 16. Opinions on Other strategies .............................................................................................................33
Table 17. Opinions on General views on hydropower development ................................................................34
Table 18. Summary of opinions on sediment transport ....................................................................................36
Table 19. Summary of opinions on Fish and aquatic species ............................................................................37
Table 20. Summary of opinions on Flow regime ...............................................................................................37
Table 21. Summary of opinions on Water quality .............................................................................................38
Table 22. Summary of opinions on Uncertainties .............................................................................................38
Table 23. Summary of opinions on factors influencing the decision-making process .......................................39
Table 24. The extent of sharing causal beliefs related to hydropower impacts ................................................39
Table 25. Summary of opinions on Level of importance ...................................................................................40
Table 26. Summary of opinions on Technical strategies to mitigate impacts ...................................................41
Table 27. Summary of opinions on Strategies related to effected communities ..............................................41
Table 28. Summary of opinions on Other strategies .........................................................................................41
Table 29. Summary of opinions on role of stakeholders ...................................................................................42
Table 30. Summary of opinions on role and future development of hydropower............................................42
Table 31. the extent of shared policy goals on hydropower development .......................................................43
Table 32. Linkages between causal beliefs and policy goals .............................................................................44
Figure 1. Mekong river basin (Source: EOS, 2016) ..............................................................................................3
Figure 2. Proposed dams in the MRB (Source: MRC, 2016e)...............................................................................5
Figure 3. Research framework ...........................................................................................................................13
Figure 4. PNPCA procedure of hydropower dam construction .........................................................................18
Figure 5. Percentage of regional and international experts………………………………………………………………………….20
Figure 6. Countries where ISH - MRC experts are from ......................................................................................20
Figure 7. Percentage of different expertise of the ISH-MRC experts………………………………………………………….….20
Figure 8. Compare between single and multi-disciplines ...................................................................................20

1

Epistemic community in the Mekong River Commission

List of abbreviations
DMP
EC
FQ
ISH
LM
LMB
MRC
MRCS
NMC
NGOs
PNPCA
SQ
RQ

Decision-making process
Epistemic community
Follow question
Initiative on Sustainable Hydropower
Lower Mekong
Lower Mekong Basin
Mekong river commission
MRC Secretariat
National Mekong Committee
Non-Governmental Organizations
Prior Notification, Prior Consultation and Agreement
Sub-research question

Research question

2


Epistemic community in the Mekong River Commission

Chapter 1. Introduction
The Mekong region is crucial not only for millions of riparian’s inhabitants but also for thousands of
species living in this diverse ecosystem. Building dams on the mainstream Mekong would create
lots of transboundary problems that cause potential damage to the people’s livelihoods and disrupt
the life cycle of species. It requires the cooperation between the member countries to mitigate
these impacts. However, the cooperation currently remains weak (Schmeier, 2012). This drives a
demand to improve the cooperation to help develop the region and protect the environment
simultaneously.
In the introduction chapter, I will first describe general background information on the crucial role
of the river, the potential transboundary risks of hydropower development on the mainstream
Mekong river, the current cooperation between riparian countries and how the concept epistemic
community contribute to improve this cooperation. Next, current studies related to the epistemic
community in the Mekong region will be examined as a basic for the problem statement and aims
of this research. Then I will explain the conceptual framework of epistemic community. Based on
that, I form research questions at the end of the chapter.

1.1.Background information
1.1.1. Background and general issues
The Mekong river, which flows around 4,400
km and drains a total of 795,000 km2 land
area in Southeast Asia, is the tenth-largest
river in the world. It starts in Tibetan Plateau,
flows along the border of Laos-Myanmar,

Laos–Thailand which forms the upper
Mekong basin. Downstream it enters the
lower Mekong basin (LMB) comprised of
Thailand, Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam.
Finally, it discharges into the South China Sea
(figure 1) (MRC, 2016a; Schmeier, 2012). The
Mekong is home to more than 80 million
people in total including 60 million living in
the lower part (MRC, 2016a). The total
population is expected to rise to more than
100 million by 2025 (Schmeier, 2012).
Together with other rivers, the Mekong has
contributed to defining the cultures,
religions, life styles and livelihoods of the
Figure 1. Mekong river basin (Source: EOS, 2016)
people of Southeast Asia (Molle, Foran, & Kakonen, 2012).
Most of the tributaries (around 100) are located in the lower basin and contribute more than 80%
of the river flow (35% from Laos, 18% from Cambodia, 18% from Thailand and 11% from Vietnam).
3


Epistemic community in the Mekong River Commission

However, the flow from the upstream basin is also very important, especially in the dry season
when it accounts for 24%. The significant difference between flows in the wet and dry season leads
to floods and water shortages respectively (Schmeier, 2012). The flood season (normally from JuneNovember) is very important for the lower Mekong basin as it creates key ecosystems, such as
wetland habitats, which are quintessential for life-cycles of many fish species. Besides, the flood
season also brings floods which benefit agriculture and fishery that provide livelihoods for about
75% of the basin’s population (Öjendal, 2000; Hirsch et al., 2006; Osborne, 2009; Menniken and
Schmeier, 2010). Having a high dependence on water for agriculture has led to water allocation

being the key collective problem which causes conflicts in the region (Schmeier, 2012).
Water allocation highly depends on the infrastructural development, especially building dam
systems for hydropower in the upstream countries (Osborne, 2009). If all proposed dams were built,
we will have an intensive dam system on the Mekong river (picture 2). Building hydropower dam
systems is considered the most important causal factor that reduces the standard of livelihoods, by
impacting fisheries, agriculture and forestry of riparian inhabitants (Middleton et al., 2009; Molle
et al., 2012; Schmeier, 2012). These issues not only have an effect on water users but also on the
river’s ecosystem of all riparian countries. An overview of problems from hydropower development
will be elaborated in the next section.

1.1.2. Problems related to hydropower development
Current economic and population growth in the Mekong region coupled with the high price of fossil
fuels has led to a high demand for hydropower (Molle et al., 2012; Kuenzer et al, 2013; van
Genugten, 2015). Besides, hydropower is viewed as one of the most important means to improve
the national economy in Laos and Cambodia; therefore, hydropower plants have been promoted
and put back on the agenda of the Mekong region, especially in Laos (van Genugten, 2015; Hirsch,
2016).
However, the benefits of Mekong hydropower generation seem to be exaggerated since some
research has raised concerns that the mainstream dams contribute little to nothing to the economy
(Costanza et al., 2011; Hirsch, 2016). Researchers also claim that the supposed connection between
dams building and livelihoods improvement has been based on an insufficient number of examples
(Molle et al., 2012). Other than that, many researchers are concerned that the environmental and
social impacts exceed the economic benefits (Hirsch, 2016).
Regarding the environmental impacts, the cumulate effects of all dams if built would have severe
impacts on the lower Mekong such as altering the natural flow patterns, reducing sediment load,
disrupting fisheries and other ecosystem services (Grumbine, Dore, & Xu, 2012; Kuenzer et al, 2013;
Lynch, 2016). MRC’s Strategic Environmental Assessment has projected that the loss from the
impacts on agriculture and fisheries would be equal to $500 million/year and 50 - 75% of sediment
load would be trapped behind the dams (Grumbine and Xu, 2011). Lynch (2016) has proved that
the construction of the dam cascade in China reduces the water level in the downstream countries.

Besides, this also causes flooding the reservoirs behind the dams, altering landscape upstream,
bank erosion and reducing water quality (Lynch, 2016).

4


Epistemic community in the Mekong River Commission

The effects on the river’s ecosystem have negative consequences on millions of riparian inhabitants
who directly or indirectly depend on the river for their livelihoods (Grumbine et al; Lynch, 2016).
Furthermore, the cultural traditions, economic freedom and food security might be all effected. The
potential severity of these effects could reduce the growth and stability of the downstream
countries which could threaten peace and security (Lynch, 2016). For example, Laos and Cambodia
would lose up to 30% of their annual
protein intake (Grumbine and Xu, 2011).
The Tonle Sap Lake in Cambodia and the
Mekong Delta in Vietnam are especially
vulnerable to the effects caused by the
dam construction as the inhabitants’
livelihoods are highly dependent on the
dynamics of the river (Arias et al., 2012;
Keskinen et al., 2012; Lynch, 2016).
Despite the efforts of the Mekong River
Commission (MRC) to reduce the speed of
development until there is a better
understanding of the potential impacts,
hydropower projects are still promoted
(Lynch, 2016). As the MRC predicts, if the
hydropower scheme is completed, the
number of large hydropower dams would

be tripled (figure 2). This would lead to the
increase of the active storage to over 90
km3 within the next few decades (MRC,
2009; Kummu, Lu, Wang, & Varis, 2010;
Arias et al., 2012). Many actors have been
pushing hydropower generation in the
Figure 2. Proposed dams in the MRB (Source: MRC, 2016e)
region including: the MRC, the World Bank,
the Asian Development Bank, the United
Nations, bilateral donors, Western hydropower companies and consultants, and especially China
(Molle et al., 2012; Urban, Nordensvärd, Khatri, & Wang, 2013). Cooperation between the actors
involved, including riparian countries, plays the key role in resolving these problems. A closer look
at the cooperation through the MRC will be analysed in the next section.

1.1.3. The cooperation in the region through the Mekong regime
Summary of the establishment of the Mekong regime
Despite the coexistence of conflict and cooperation in the Mekong basin, major actors tend to
cooperate and resolve the problem before conflicts happen (Öjendal, 2000). This cooperation has
been observed since the 1960s and developed along with the establishment of the river basin
organizations (Schmeier, 2012). It has been shaped by the specific rules, norms, principles and
procedures that are considered the Mekong regime (Krasner, 1983). The cooperative regime, which
has been achieved through a long difficult process of negotiation and commitment between
5


Epistemic community in the Mekong River Commission

riparian members to participate in the basin governance, was mostly in the form of the Mekong
Committee (MC) and the Interim Mekong Committee (IMC) (Jacobs, 2000, 2002; Bearden, 2010;
Schmeier, 2012). This cooperation was not always easy, especially with the conflict between

riparian states during the Cold War. In fact, it was pushed by the support of external stakeholders
such as The United States, European countries and UNDP (Browder, 2000; Schmeier, 2012). After
the end of the Cold War, with this support, especially from UNDP and Europe, the cooperation has
moved to a new chapter in 1995 with the establishment of the MRC after huge complex
negotiations (Browder & Ortolano, 2000; Keskinen, Mehtonen, & Varis, 2008; Schmeier, 2012). A
summary of the MRC’s history is shown in table 1.
Table 1. Summary of Mekong regime (Source: Browder & Ortolano, 2000, p.530)
Regime era

Water management
objectives

Regional
geopolitics

International
benefactors

Mekong Committee
(1957-1975)
Interim Mekong
Committee (1978-1992)

Integrated
development
Independent
development

Allies against
communism

Cold War
antagonists

United States, United
Nations
Europe, United
Nations

MRC (1995-present)

Water allocation

Regional partners

Europe, United
Nations

The establishment of the MRC is based on the 1995 Agreement on Cooperation for Sustainable
Development of the Mekong River Basin1 with the vision of transferring responsibility to the riparian
states (MRC, 2016b). Nevertheless, the cooperation remains of low quality and rarely goes beyond
the economic interests of the countries (Schmeier, 2012). Improving the cooperation would require
an effort to strengthen the role of the MRC in the regional cooperation.

Strengthening the effectiveness of the MRC
Several research has been done to improve the role of the MRC such as some authors analyse the
structure of the MRC and its effectiveness or the role of various actors along the river (Hirsch et al,
2006; Backer, 2007; Keskinen 2008; Schmeier, 2009; Menniken and Schmeier, 2010; Bearden,
2010).
Noteworthy, Schmeier (2012) argues that one of the main impediments in the effectiveness of the
MRC is the weakness in decision making and the connection between regional and national

implementation. This is due to several reasons including lack of human and technical capacity of
the NMC’s officials who are considered as directly responsible for the implementation of the MRC’s
strategic plans (Schmeier, 2012; MRC, 2016d). This is considered to be one of the bottlenecks to
improve the cooperation between riparian countries (Schmeier, 2012).
Besides, Menniken (2010) pointed out that the perceptions of using natural resources of involved
actors in the basin are different. They do not share a common understanding about the river

1

This will be referred to as 1995 Agreement throughout this thesis.

6


Epistemic community in the Mekong River Commission

resources thus pursue their own interests to exploit the common river resources without paying
much attention to, or indeed neglecting, the transboundary problems (Menniken, 2010).
The research of Schmeier and Menniken has pointed to the same concern about the role of
knowledge-based explanatory factor 2 in improving the cooperation in the Mekong region:
strengthening the institutional capacity and creating common understanding between different
actors. Some research has suggested that epistemic communities could help generating common
perceptions of problems and therefore drawing consensus in solving them (Lindemann, 2008; Litta,
2012). A literature review of the research on the epistemic communities in the Mekong region will
be presented in the next section.

1.2.Literature review on the epistemic community in the Mekong region
The role of epistemic communities (ECs) in the Mekong region has been mentioned in some
research. Dore (2003) confirms the contribution of the EC in providing a thinking space which helps
policy researchers and advocacy groups in sharing, expanding and refining the regional knowledge

(Dore, 2003). Schmeier (2012) stresses the importance of different epistemic communities with
knowledge-oriented groups which provide important input to the MRC (Schmeier, 2012). Bastakoti
et al (2008) named a specific EC M-POWER 3 which not only helps to develop the capacity in
conducting governance problems research, but also facilitates dialogues, policy analysis and public
communication (Bastakoti et al., 2008).
Interestingly, MRC itself is considered as “an international body that serves as a negotiation
platform and epistemic community” which helps spreading knowledge and information related to
water issues (Menniken, 2007, p.98; Hinkel and Menniken, 2007; Kranz, Menniken & Hinkel, 2010).
More specific, Menniken (2010) pointed out that MRC Secretariat (MRCS) is the core of this EC
according to many relevant actors. It has managed to spread the common understanding of
interdependency in resource use to a wide range of actors and plays an important role in creating
norms in the region, shaping the mind-sets of stakeholders, consequently, causing changes in
actors’ behaviour (Menniken, 2010).
However, this EC “has not yet managed to transfer its position as standard-setter from the scientific
and expert community into the political and legal arenas of the region” (Menniken, 2010; Kranz et
al., 2010, p.656). One of the main reasons is that the real decision making power lies in the
countries. Despite the effort of the MRCS in creating the common platform for sharing, these
decision makers still do not share the same concerns in the region (Menniken, 2010; Schmeier,
2012). This raises questions of why the voice of the MRC EC is unheard by the national decision
makers and how to get these actors come to terms with the common perspectives?
Nevertheless, while recognizing the weakness of the MRC EC in the riparian members’ political
arenas, the authors did not give a detailed understanding of the characteristics of the MRC EC. Even
though using the EC definition of Haas, none of them pointed to any reference which explains why
and how to identify these ECs. Furthermore, it appears that none of them has conducted any

2
3

This term will be referred to as the knowledge factor throughout this thesis
Mekong Program on Water, Environment and Resilience

7


Epistemic community in the Mekong River Commission

research to see if the groups they were describing match the definition they used. The knowledge
gap between the need to improve regional cooperation and understanding on EC in the Mekong
region has promoted me to do this research as stated in the next section.

1.3.Problem statement and research objectives
Currently, the Mekong region is facing lots of transboundary challenges. One of the most important
ones is diverting water for hydropower with the provision of an intensive dam building system in
both the main stream and tributaries, leading to potential risk of both reducing the inhabitants’
livelihoods and damaging the river’s ecosystem. Despite the effort of the MRC to improve the
cooperation of the riparian members, it remains ineffective. Besides, the MRC is weak in decision
making. Several main reasons are mentioned including: 1) lack of common understanding between
the key decision makers regarding the use of the river resources; and 2) lack of institutional capacity
such as human and technical resources in the region.
Several authors have suggested that epistemic communities could strengthen the institutional
capacity and create common understanding between different actors. Furthermore, the existence
of the MRC EC is widely accepted by relevant actors. Nevertheless, the voice of the MRC EC is not
heeded by the national decision makers. At the same time, there is a lack of understanding about
the characteristics of as well as research on the MRC EC. Therefore, possible solutions to increase
the role of the knowledge factor as well as the voice of the MRC remain under-explored. An
enhanced understanding of the MRC EC might broaden the scope of measures to improve the
collaboration in and the effectiveness of the Mekong regime in resolving collective problems. Any
effort to study the MRC EC however should start by identifying its members and proving its
existence.
Therefore, this research first aims to fill in the knowledge gap by studying the characteristics of the

MRC EC. It will contribute to the understanding of the role of knowledge factor on the international
water regime. Second, based on the study of the MRC EC, the research seeks to provide
recommendations to improve the cooperation in the Mekong region. This will help to facilitate a
better use of water resources to improve the environment and the livelihoods of riparian people.
To reach these objectives, first and foremost is to understand the concept EC as well as the theories
that apply to the concept on transboundary water regime as analysed in the next section.

1.4.Conceptual framework
1.4.1. Conceptualization of Haas’ epistemic community definition
The term “epistemic community” was probably first introduced by Ruggie in the international
relations in 1972 (Andreas, 2010). However, this term remained a marginal concept in the study of
international relations until the 1990s when it was re-introduced and treated as an independent
approach in elucidating the patterns of cooperation and policy change by Haas (Haas P., 1992;
Antoniades, 2003).
Haas defines: “An epistemic community is a network of professionals with recognized expertise and
competence in a particular domain and an authoritative claim to policy-relevant knowledge within
8


Epistemic community in the Mekong River Commission

that domain or issue-area” (Haas P., 1992, p.3). While Haas does not explicitly explain two main
components in his definition: “recognized expertise and competence” and “authoritative claim to
policy-relevant knowledge”, nevertheless, he emphasizes that the professionals are not necessary
scientists; instead, they can be individuals or organizations who are from different disciplines or
backgrounds and have “a sufficiently strong claim to a body of knowledge that is valued by society”
(Haas P., 1992, p.16; Chilvers, 2008).
Furthermore, these professionals meet four main “defining features” (Haas P., 1992; Antoniades,
2003, p.24): (1) they share normative and principled beliefs which help the members to define their
goals of preferences of their social actions; (2) they share causal beliefs which help to create a

common understanding and awareness among the members about the causes of particular
problems, therefore, leading them to identify the connections between a particular policy with
associated outcomes; (3) they share notions of validity which are criteria defined internally to weigh
and validate knowledge in their expertise’s domain; and (4) they share policy goals which is “a set
of common practices” that they belief can solve the problems to improve human welfare (Haas P.,
1992, p.3; Hasenclever, Mayer & Rittberger, 1996).
Some authors have criticized Haas’s definition, e.g. Sebenius claims that Haas treated power and
knowledge as separable factors instead of bounding them together (Sebenius, 1992); or Jacobsen
argued that this concept would collapse if the community’s member is also a decision maker
(Antoniades, 2003). Some authors propose to improve the definition, e.g. Zito suggests that the
definition should be either changed to be broader or linked to “other supporting coalitions” (Zito,
2001); and Dunlop recommends that the relative importance of the four features should be
explained (Dunlop, 2000; Antoniades, 2003, p.26). Nevertheless, the ECs have been considered to
contribute to the formation of international regime as presented in the next section.

1.4.2. The role of ECs in international regime formation
ECs play a crucial role as they help circulating innovations from societies to governments and
between countries. They are considered as a “central vehicle for international learning”
(Hasenclever et al., p.209). Furthermore, ECs can recognize and speak for public concerns,
therefore, they have great influence in both society and politics through communication. This
influence depends on several factors including the consensus among the members (Adler and Haas,
1992; Haas P., 1992).
Three main conditions when the scientists or experts will influence the coordination of international
policy are identified by Haas: First, policymakers have high level of uncertainty (Hasenclever et al.,
1996). When they face complex problems, they usually lack the capacity to understand the causeeffect relationship and the linkages between them. However, they normally do not realize this until
a crisis or a shock happens so that they must seek for help from epistemic communities (Haas P.M.,
1992). The more uncertainty policymakers face, the more cooperation they want. Therefore, those
experts who could reduce this uncertainty can exert political power; sometimes they can even drive
policymakers to switch their strategies (Hasenclever et al., 1996). Second, no common
understanding exists among the experts, which results in incoherent policy advice; consequently,

the problems are resolved based on political merits rather than technical one (Adler and Haas, 1992;

9


Epistemic community in the Mekong River Commission

Haas P.M., 1992). Third, the communities’ members are in the bureaucratic system and therefore
gain political power (Adler and Haas, 1992).
As far as I have been able to determine, the first use of the EC concept within a systemic framework
to explain the formation of international water regime was by Lindemann as described in the next
section.

1.4.3. Role of ECs in international water regime formation
The definition of international water regime is developed by Lindemann (2008) based on the
definition of international regime (IR) of Krasner (1983). Accordingly, international water regime is
“sets of implicit or explicit principles, norms, rules and decision making procedures around which
actor’s expectations converge in the management of transboundary rivers” (Lindemann, 2008,
p.119).
Different schools of thought exist in parallel and develop their arguments to explain the formation
of international water regime. Neoliberalist scholars base their explanative frameworks on
constellations of interests between riparian members, by which, the regime is more likely to be
formed in case of shared problems (Marty, 2001; Lindemann, 2008). Realist scholars’ explanations
are based on the presence of a hegemon, by which, the regime is more likely in case of a
downstream hegemon (Lowi, 1995; Lindemann, 2008). By contrast, the role of knowledge-based
explanatory factor is neglected (Lindemann, 2008).
Lindemann (2008) has developed a unified framework based on four different approaches (powerbased, interest-based, context-based and knowledge-based) by combining all schools of thought to
explain the international water regime formation. One of the distinct differences between his
framework and other competing approaches is that he systematically analysed the role of
knowledge factor which is considered to have an “independent role” in the formation of the

international water regimes (Lindemann, 2008, p.123). Accordingly, the “central mechanism” of
knowledge-based explanatory factor is an EC (Lindemann, 2008, p.123).
Based on the definition of Haas, Lindemann elaborated: “epistemic communities in international
river basin management will typically include professionals with recognized expertise and
competence in problems affecting the respective river basin” (Lindemann, 2008, p. 123). Though
giving a definition of EC in the international water regime, nevertheless, Lindemann does not
provide any detailed framework to help identify the EC4. Therefore, the identification of an EC will
mainly be based on Haas’s guidance as analysed in the next section.

1.4.4. Identifying an EC
In principle, to identify an EC, one needs to study the four defining features. Among them, shared
causal belief is considered as the distinctive feature and be at the top to distinguish an EC from
some other groups such as interest groups, social movements, etc. (Haas P., 1992; Antoniades,
2003). Besides, other broader scientific groups such as disciplines and professions also share causal
4

Although Lindemann concluded that ECs were present in the Elbe and the Rhine, he refrained from elucidating how he got to this
conclusion.

10


Epistemic community in the Mekong River Commission

beliefs (Haas, 1992). However, though scientific groups might have a consensual knowledge base,
they lack a shared principled belief like the members of an EC. Therefore, to distinguish between
epistemic communities and other scientific groups, one can base on principled beliefs or policy goals
feature. Besides, the principled and causal beliefs drive the members of the EC to seek for a same
set of policies to solve the problem at hand (Haas P., 1992). In other words, principled beliefs are
converted into the policy goals of the community. Therefore, shared policy goals could be

considered as the distinguishing feature of an EC besides the shared causal beliefs. In summary, one
can distinguish the EC from other groups based on causal beliefs and policy goals (table 2) (Haas P.,
1992).
Table 2. Distinguish between epistemic communities and other groups (Source: Haas P., 1992)

Policy goals

Causal beliefs
Shared

Unshared

Shared

Epistemic communities

Interest groups and social movements

Unshared

Disciplines and professions

Legislators, bureaucratic agencies, and
bureaucratic coalitions

As stated in the research objectives section, I aim to study the MRC EC regarding hydropower
development. Accordingly, four defining features of an EC should be uncovered. However, this is an
over-ambitious goal regarding the allocated time of a master thesis. Besides, as aforementioned,
one can distinguish an EC to other groups based on shared causal beliefs and common policy goals
or based on shared causal beliefs and shared principled beliefs. But identifying one’s principled

belief is complicated and demands lots of time and effort which, again, does not fit the limited time
allocated to a master thesis. Furthermore, principled beliefs are converted into policy goals as
analysed above. Therefore, I will narrow the scope of this research to identifying the shared causal
beliefs and common policy goals of the MRC EC regarding hydropower development on the
mainstream Mekong river.
Haas describes: “Shared causal beliefs, which are derived from their analysis of practices leading or
contributing to a central set of problems in their domain and which then serve as the basis for
elucidating the multiple linkages between possible policy actions and desired outcome” (Haas P.,
1992, p. 3). Accordingly, I define causal beliefs as beliefs on cause-effect relationships of impacts
from hydropower development on the environment as well as people’s livelihoods. Besides, the
level of effect depends on the kind of policies applied on hydropower. Thus, it is worthwhile to look
at perceived cause-effect relationships of the decisions made on the impacts from hydropower.
Therefore, in this research, the causal beliefs will be determined for two components:
Understanding of the experts on the cause-effect relations of the hydropower impacts and factors
influencing the decision-making process (DMP) related to hydropower development.
Haas defines: “A common policy enterprise-that is, a set of common practices associated with a set
of problems to which their professional competence is directed, presumably out of the conviction
that human welfare will be enhanced as a consequence” (Haas P., 1992, p. 3). Accordingly, I define
policy goals as set of practices associated with impacts from hydropower development that the
11


Epistemic community in the Mekong River Commission

experts believe to improve human welfare. Therefore, policy goals could be shown in the position
of experts on level of importance of the impacts, mitigation strategies related to technical aspects
and effected communities, role of different stakeholders, role and future development of
hydropower.
Furthermore, to study causal beliefs and policy goals, the membership of the MRC EC need to be
identified first. An investigation on the role and activities related to hydropower of the MRC would

provide the necessary information to identify the membership. Thus, the research has been carried
out by answering questions formulated in the next section.

1.5.Research questions
Main research question (RQ):
What are characteristics of the MRC EC on hydropower development in the mainstream of the
Mekong river?
To answer the main research question, several sub-research questions will be investigated below.

Sub-research question (SQ):
SQ1. What is the role of the MRC on hydropower development?
SQ2. What is the potential MRC EC network?
SQ3. To what extent do experts share causal beliefs on hydropower impacts?
SQ4. To what extent do experts share policy goals on hydropower development?
To answer the research questions, I have built a methodology based on guidance from Haas as
described in the methodology chapter.
Overall, this report consists of five chapters: The first one gave an overall introduction about the
background information, the problems faced, the research objectives, the conceptual framework
used and research questions. Next, the Methodology chapter will describe the methods used to get
the data and how the data was analysed. Following is the Results chapter which will present the
relevant results with an analysis. Based on the analysis, the followed chapter will discuss the
answers to the research questions, then compare the findings with the existing literature and
critically reflect on the limitations and value of the research. In the end, the final chapter will draw
main conclusions as well as give recommendations to improve the cooperation in the region and
further research.

12


Epistemic community in the Mekong River Commission

Chapter 2. Methodology
In this chapter the methods used to answer the research questions will be explained: first, the
reasons why methods were chosen; second, the literature review method; and third, the steps that
were taken to interview the experts and how the interview data was analysed.

2.1.Reasons
Haas has suggested to use causal mapping and network analysis from Axelrod to study an EC (Haas
P., 1992). However, he does not give any further guidance on this. The amount of time allocation
did not allow me to explore the whole new method. Therefore, I have developed the methodology
with guidance from Haas and some other authors as presented below.
The individuals of the potential network of an EC could be the respected experts who are regularly
listed in the delegation of intergovernmental meetings; or the experts who oversee writing
background reports or giving brief information to diplomats. To identify their beliefs, it is necessary
to conduct a detailed study of a wide range of materials including “the early publications of the
community members, testimonies before legislative bodies, speeches, biographical accounts, and
interviews” (Haas, P., 1992, p.35).
Interviewing and documentary methods are commonly used to study an existing EC. For an
emergent EC, social network analysis is used to support above mentioned methods (Chilvers, 2008).
Key experts are identified based on four criteria: Reputation; Depth of experience; Diversity of
expertise; and Sector diversity (Scott, 2012). The aim of using reputation and depth of experience
criteria is to ensure the expertise and competence of the experts as well as the authoritative claim
to the policy-relevant knowledge in the hydropower domain; while the expertise and sector
diversity criteria aim to diversify the network’s entry points to a maximal level (Chilvers, 2008).
As described in the introduction chapter, the existence of the MRC EC is widely accepted by relevant
actors. However, there is no research done on its network and the core beliefs. Thus, in my view,
the MRC EC is in between an existing epistemic community and an emergent epistemic community.
Therefore, I combined all methods mentioned above to study the MRC EC. First, literature review
and social network analysis were applied to identify the key potential experts. Next, the causal
beliefs and policy goals were derived from expert interviews (figure 3).

Main RQ:
Characteristics of
the EC

SQ1: Roles and
activities of the
MRC

•Literature
review

SQ2: Potential MRC
EC network

•Literature + Social
network analysis

SQ3 (Shared causal beliefs)
SQ4 (Shared policy goals)
•Expert Interview + Content
assessment

Figure 3. Research framework
13


Epistemic community in the Mekong River Commission

2.2.Literature review and social network analysis

Literature review has been done to gain general knowledge about the Mekong region, the impacts
of hydropower development in general, the conceptual frameworks used as well as to answer SQ1
and SQ2. Besides, some techniques from social network analysis have been applied to help identify
and establish contact with key experts.

General understanding of background knowledge
A large range of secondary literature were searched for, using the key words related to two main
subjects of the research: “epistemic community”, “Mekong regime formation/history”, “Mekong
River Commission”, etc. This secondary literature review provides background information and
knowledge about the main concepts used as well as the formation of the Mekong regime and the
role of EC in the transboundary water regime.

To answer the SQ1 and SQ2
SQ1. What is the role of the MRC on hydropower development?
To answer SQ1, I studied a number of scientific papers and followed the news on the MRC website
in order to gain insights on the role of the MRC on hydropower development.
SQ2. What is the potential MRC EC network?
To answer SQ2, I followed Haas’s guidance to look for the people who wrote policy documents and
attended international conferences. Due to a lack of connections, I was unable to find out who
briefed diplomats. Therefore, I searched for the keyword “hydropower” in the MRC website and
found more than 250 documents which are published in different categories such as Sustainable
hydropower, Conference and workshop proceedings, Governance reports (Annual reports, Minutes
of the meetings, Process and assessment), Technical paper series, etc. (until January 2017). I
extracted all expert names and got a list of more than 200 people called Professionals list. Next, I
selected a list of 18 potential experts based on the appearance frequencies in the meetings,
presenting and having important positions to do the interview. Due to the sensitivity, I cannot put
all these lists on my thesis (annex 1). I then discovered that all of them have been involved in the
team Initiative on Sustainable Hydropower (ISH). Then I studied the ISHs reports and activities more
closely and discovered that the ISH contains the core experts related to hydropower development
in the MRC.

At the same time, I contacted the MRCS requesting the list of experts that were invited to the
meetings, conferences and forums. However, I have not received any response from the MRCS.
Besides, I also studied some other sources of secondary literature such as the biographical accounts
of the experts to understand about their involvement with the MRC and their contact information.
The findings from SQ1 and SQ2 helped to answer the remaining research questions SQ3 and SQ4.
After having the lists of potential key experts, I contacted and interviewed them as describe in the
next section.
14


Epistemic community in the Mekong River Commission

2.3.Interview experts
My original plans were to study other sources of primary literature such as the early publications,
testimonies, speeches and autobiographical accounts of the potential members to identify their
causal beliefs and policy goals. However, it was impossible for me to find these documents of all of
them. Therefore, I decided to do interviews with detailed steps that are explained below.

Validating the key experts and sending invitations to interviewees
While there is no standard for a sufficient number of members in an EC, it varies greatly (typically
thirty-five or much less) in a number of studies that have been done before (Adler and Haas, 1992).
My aim was to do at least five interviews.
With my supervisor’s advice, I sent the list of 18 potential experts to one of the experts whose
credentials I took seriously and asked what would be ten most important experts. The expert
pointed out 8 out of 18 and added two more experts thought to be very important. I discovered
that these two experts are also in the professional list and have been involving in the ISH team.
Then I asked the expert to introduce me to the other experts. The expert graciously agreed and
gave me email addresses of some experts that I could not find on the internet. Besides, the expert
recommended me to talk with some other experts who are not in any of my lists as well as sending
me some of their documents.

At the same time, I was seeking for another validation from a regional expert. However, this person
refused because of the sensitivity of this subject (annex 1). Once the person came to the
Netherlands, we met and talked for about an hour. The person pointed out to some experts with a
comment that I could contact them but said there was a very small chance that they would respond.
Among those people, 5 experts overlapped with the list that the first expert validated. Nevertheless,
I contacted all those whose email addresses I could find on the internet.
Besides, one of my supervisors introduced me with a regional expert who is not in the list. We sat
down for an interview nevertheless to get to know more about the region. I asked about the experts
I should interview once more. I was introduced to another regional expert who I later discovered to
be in my professionals list and used to be involved with the ISH. Though unintentionally, I used the
snowball technique to identify the key experts for interview.
In total, I sent 12 invitations: Seven experts accepted to do the interview via Skype, two refused and
four have not responded. In the end, I did 6 interviews which last from 30 minutes to two hours,
one interview could not be scheduled yet. I used the data from the 5 interviews with 5 experts who
are in the list.

Interview and record
Semi-structured interviews were used in this research because I wanted to make sure that certain
topics would be addressed during the interview while also allowing the interviewees the freedom
to express themselves as they want.

15


Epistemic community in the Mekong River Commission

The interview questions with different topics were designed based on the understanding of two
main components (causal beliefs and policy goals) and results obtained from literature review for
SQ1 and SQ2. Accordingly, they consist of questions on multiple topics related to hydropower:
General opinions on hydropower, General opinions on hydropower in the mainstream Mekong

river, understanding about specific impacts of a specific dam, decision-making process, learning
process and views on role and future development of hydropower (annex 2).
During the interviews, I often had to change the way I asked questions, rephrasing or changing the
order of the questions slightly to suit each expert. All interviews were recorded and noted down
then transcribed. Names of interviewees are anonymous and represented by a code (E1, E2, E3, E4
and E5) due to the sensitivity in the region (annex 1).

2.4.Interview data analysis
Transcription and cleaning the data
Everything from the recordings was written down. Due to the internet disruption, some words were
not clear, therefore, I checked with a friend who had excellent English to make sure that I heard the
words properly. From the original transcriptions, unimportant parts were deleted followed specific
rules to ensure the cleaning process did not effect on the content of the interviews (annex 3).

Analyse the data
I selected and grouped the answer of the experts into four categories following the interview
questions: impacts of hydropower development, decision-making process, mitigation strategies,
role and future development of hydropower. In each category, I selected the topics which were
discussed by all the experts (table 3). In each topic, I selected sub-topics of each key expert’s
answers then analysed in the result chapter (annex 4).
Table 3. List of topics
Category 1
Topic 1
Topic 2
Topic 3
Topic 4
Topic 5
Category 2
Topic 6
Topic 7

Category 3
Topic 8
Topic 9
Topic 10
Topic 11
Category 4
Topic 12

Hydropower impacts
Sediment transport
Fish and aquatic species
Flow regime
Water quality
Uncertainties
Decision-making process
Factors effect on the decision-making process
Role of stakeholders
Mitigation strategies
Level of impacts’ importance
Technical mitigation strategies
Effected communities
Other strategies
Role and future development of hydropower
Role and future development of hydropower

16


Epistemic community in the Mekong River Commission

Next, to make it easier for the reader, I summarize the results by emotional icons in the discussion
section follow several rules (table 4).
Table 4. Rules on emotional icons
Face

Rules
When majority of the experts has the same ideas
When the expert has different idea but not necessary disagrees
When the expert disagrees to the majority

Besides, I compare the answers between different experts and assess the level of extent of
agreement in each topic based on a set of rules of assessment (table 5).
Table 5. Rules of assessment
Level of extent
Do not share
A small extent
An average extent
A significant extent
A complete extent

Rules
All the experts disagree with at least half of the sub-topics and do not agree on
any of them
All the experts agree at least one sub-topic. The sub-topic is mentioned by all
the experts/All the experts do not agree and disagree on any sub-topic
All the experts agree on half of the sub-topics and no disagreement
All the experts agree on more than half of the sub-topics and no disagreement
All the experts agree on all sub-topics and most sub-topics are mentioned by all
the experts

I also seek the linkages between the causal beliefs and policy goals of the whole community on their
agreements and disagreements. Finally, conclusions will be drawn based on the analysis, the
assessment and the linkages. But first, the results of the research will be presented in the next
chapter.

17


Epistemic community in the Mekong River Commission

Chapter 3. Results
In this chapter, the results will be displayed and analysed following the guidance of the conceptual
framework and the methodology in the previous chapters. First, the results of literature review will
be presented, followed by the results of the expert interviews.

3.1.Literature review
In this section, the results from literature review will be presented to answer the first two subresearch questions: 1st, the role and activities of the MRC; and 2nd, the potential network of the
MRC EC regarding hydropower development on the mainstream Mekong river.

3.1.1. Role of the MRC in the hydropower development
Hydropower development was the inspiration for the establishment of the Mekong regime since its
infancy and while reduced this ideology might still linger (annex 5) (Dore, 2003: 425 cited in Backer,
2007 cited in Thim, 2010). As discussed in the introduction chapter, the long and complex
negotiation that resulted in the establishment of the MRC was based on the mandate of the 1995
Agreement with the new protocols of Prior Notification, Prior Consultation and Agreement (PNPCA)
(Matthews & Geheb, 2014). This part will give a description of the role of the MRC in the PNPCA
procedure as well as the MRC activities related to hydropower development.

The PNPCA procedure for the mainstream hydropower projects
The role of the MRC in the hydropower development is stated in the PNPCA procedure of the 1995

Agreement. The mainstream hydropower projects belong to both
categories of prior notification and consultation (MRC, 2003;
MRC
Matthews & Geheb, 2014). This section will give a general
description of how the procedure works as well as listing the
Council
responsibilities of each permanent MRC body.
Policy making body
When a country proposes a project, it must submit prior
Joint Committee
notification and consultation requests to the other MRC members
through its NMC and the MRCS before the implementation phase.
Seceretariat
The MRCS will transfer the requests to the MRC Joint Committee
Operational body
(MRC JC) and other NMCs. The notified members will evaluate the
proposed projects and could request additional information, field
Proposing country
visits or presentations to the MRC JC through the MRCS. The MRC
JC will review the requests from notified members, carry out
Figure 4. PNPCA procedure of
consultation (by establishing working groups or technical advisory hydropower dam construction
teams) and make final decisions to arrive at an agreement about
the proposed project. The MRCS functions as a bridge between all these actors through: reviewing
and analysing documents, communicating between member countries and providing technical
advice to the MRC JC. The MRC Council will approve the decisions of the MRC JC and resolve any
issues from the other bodies (Figure 4) (MRC, 2003).

18

Epistemic community in the Mekong River Commission

In fact, the MRC has limited power in the decision-making process regarding hydropower
development. Instead, it plays the role of supporting member countries in making decisions
(Öjendal et al., 2002). Among the MRC’s permanent bodies, the MRCS plays the central role in
providing scientific support to examine hydropower development projects (Molle et al., 2012). A
number of related activities are arranged to fulfil this role as described in the next section.

MRC main programs and activities related to hydropower development
On the MRC website, Sustainable Hydropower development is represented as one of nine key topics
for the planning processes of the Mekong region. However, since the topics are interlinked,
hydropower is also discussed in the other eight key topics through a wide range of events and
programs (annex 6).
Among them, the ISH is considered to be the central vehicle for the coordination of a number of
cross-cutting activities that are important to assess and motivate sustainable development in the
decision-making process in the region. The ISH was designed and established in 2008 partly based
on previous MRC activities related to hydropower development originating from the 1995 Mekong
Agreement. It has assisted the MRC member countries with decisions related to hydropower
development including the PNPCA. Besides, based on consultation with the member countries and
learning from the regional and international experience, the team has developed the Preliminary
Design Guidance for Proposed Lower Mekong Basin Hydropower Schemes. The team also supports
the development of strategic transboundary assessments to provide technical advice to member
countries related to hydropower development in the region. It has created a platform for
knowledge and information exchange as well as experience sharing between the members (MRC,
2010d).
The team composes of different sub-teams with core experts working on different topics (table 6)
Table 6. The ISH teams (Source: MRC, 2017)
Team
Purposes

ISH01
Identification of Ecologically Sensitive Sub-Basins for Sustainable Development of
Hydropower on Tributaries
ISH02
Development of guidelines on the multi-purpose evaluation of hydropower Project
ISH0306 Guidelines for hydropower environmental impact mitigation and risk management in
the LM mainstream and tributaries
ISH11
Improved Environmental & Socio-Economic Baseline Information for Hydropower
Planning
ISH13
Benefit Sharing Options for Hydropower on Mekong Tributaries
In summary, the ISH’s expert community is a pivotal part of the potential network of the MRC EC.
This community will be studied in more detail as described in the next section.

19