Strategic Environmental Assessment as a tool for trans-boundary river basin management: A case study of the Chenab River Basin

1. Strategic Environmental Assessment as a tool for trans-boundary river basin
management: A case study of the Chenab River Basin
Author: Kinza Irshad
COMSATS University Islamabad, Abbottabad Campus

2. Abstract
Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) role is not limited to any sector but its role
expending in all developing projects, plans and programmes. The study investigates the role
of the SEA in the Mekong and Mara river basins planning and its compatibility for the
Chenab River Basin (CRB). The study first investigates two international SEA case studies
(Mekong and Mara River Basins) based on literature review and selected interviews and tries
to identify the success conditions for these SEA studies. The source of data for the CRB
situation was based on structured and semi-structured interviews with key stakeholders in
Pakistan. The study shows that the major success conditions for the SEA study of the
Mekong River Basin included Mekong River Agreement of 1995. Similarly, the key success
conditions for the SEA study of the Mara River Basin includedthe East African Community
agreement of 1999. The study documented possible success conditions for the SEA study of
the CRB included the Indus Water Treaty of 1960. It is concluded that although the SEA as
assessment tool provided interesting contributions for the Mekong and Mara river
management, the level of success was limited because the recommendations were not
accepted or partially implemented. Although, the CRB complies most of success factors and
conditions of successful SEA study, those which were recorded in the Mekong and Mara case
studies except the level of cooperation between India and Pakistan is limited and Indus Water
Treaty of 1960 is missing environment and joint management approach.
Key Words: SEA, Chenab, Mekong, Mara and River Basin Management

3. Introduction
Trans-boundary river management is a historical challenge between river basins sharing
countries across the globe (Furlong, Petter Gleditsch, & Hegre, 2006). Climate change and
rapid population growth adds to further conflicts and demand of water (De Stefano et al.,
2012). Hydropolitical conflicts over distribution of water and river resources are key
challenges in South Asia (Uprety and Salman 2011). South Asians countries often
traditionally cooperate on major trans-boundary river basins but serious concerns have been
emerging on current water allocations and developments in upper catchments of these rivers
(Uprety & Salman, 2011). Trans-boundary river conflicts and hydropolitical tensions have
been increasing between India and Pakistan over time (Khan, 2013). After long negotiations
both countries agreed to sign the "Indus Water Treaty" (IWT) in 1960 with the help of World
Bank (WB) (Gulhati, 1973). The IWT allocated three eastern rivers (Sutlej, Ravi and Beas) to
India and three western rives (Indus, Chenab and Jhelum) to Pakistan (Uprety & Salman,
2011). The cascade of hydropower and damming projects on the Chenab River Basin (CRB)
further increases conflicts between two states. Therefore, hydropolitical tensions in the basin
are high, particularly in the CRB (Ahmad, 2012).
Different assessment tools have been used globally to support trans-boundary river basin
management and Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) is one of them (King & Noël,
2011). SEA aims at an environmental impact assessment of policies, plans, programmes and
its application is not limited to any particular sector of planning (Monica & Hanusch, 2012).
SEA is an advanced approach, which aims to avoid conflicts, and to support socio-
environmental integration and environmental friendly decision making in a river basin
context's (Fernanda, Santos, & Duran Martins, 2014; ICEM, 2010). Other advantages of SEA
are that its framework can provide a joint working environment, as well as provide an early
platform for consultation amongst key stakeholders for river basin sharing countries
(Albrecht, 2008; ICEM, 2010). SEA applications used for Mekong and Mara river basins
planning to address trans-boundary river conflicts and management concerns (Nelson et al.,
2012; USAID, 2010). Several planning scientists suggest the role of SEA as a planning
instrument for trans-boundary river planning globally. The scope and role of this tool for
effective Indus River System (IRS) management generally and Chenab River Basin (CRB)
planning specifically is not studied so far.

4. Methodology
A qualitative research approach is adopted (Erlewein, 2013; Nadeem & Hameed, 2008). An
extensive literature review was conducted about the role of Strategic Environmental
Assessment (SEA) in the Mekong and Mara River Basin planning processes. The literature
consisted of academic literature (including journals, books, and thesis), treaties, EIA/SEA
methodology documents, protocol documents, SEA reports and websites. The factors and
conditions of successful applications in these case studies were documented and the
investigation was based on predefined variables Additionally, structured interviews were
held with two international experts, who were directly and indirectly involved in the SEA
study of the Mekong River Basin (MRB). The selection criteria for both case studies were
based on economies of countries, conflicts, level of cooperation and trans-boundary river
management agreements.
Case study 1: Strategic Environmental Assessment of the Mekong River Basin
Mekong River is one of the largest least dammed rivers in South Asia and backbone for
economies of the Viet Nam, Cambodia, Lao-PDR, Myanmar, and Thailand (MRC, 2003;
Sneddon & Fox, 2006). Mekong River Basin (MRB) is biggest home to inland fisheries,
approximately 1200-1700 fish species recorded in and associated tributaries of the Mekong
River (Coates, 2001; Ziv et al., 2012). Major functions and services of MRB are fisheries,
drinking water, habitats, agriculture irrigation and industrial use for approximately 70 million
inhabitants of catchment (MRC, 2011). Although, high reliance of basin communities on
Mekong River Basin (MRB) resources, massive hydropower development and planned
damming projects leads several conflicts and environmental degradation (Ziv et al., 2012). In
addition, mismanagement, lack of environmental consideration, numerous hydropower
projects, lack of cooperation and emerging population pose serious threats to MRB and
associated biodiversity (Alebel et al., 2010)

5. Mekong River Agreement of 1995 and the
role of the Mekong River Commission in the
SEA study
The Lower Mekong River Basin (LMRB)
sharing countries (Cambodia, Lao PDR,
Thailand and Viet Nam) signed an agreement
in 1995 for cooperation and sustainable
utilization of Mekong River Basin (MRB)
resources (Jacobs, 1995; MRC, 1995). Under
Article (1) of the agreement a number of
cooperation fields were listed including
hydropower, fisheries, irrigation, tourism,
floods mitigation and timber floating (MRC,
1995). Article (3) of the agreement describes
that environmental protection and ecological
balance will be the priority in the river
development planning and trans-boundary
collaboration (MRC, 1995). In the agreement
of 1995, prior consultation of the Mekong
River Commission is an obligation in case of development projects on the Mekong
mainstream before implementation (Sneddon & Fox, 2006). The Mekong River Commission
(MRC) was established under Article (34) of the Mekong River Agreement of 1995 (MRC,
1995). The MRC is an intergovernmental organization and provides a platform for lower
Mekong countries to resolve their disputes and difference (Jacobs, 2002; MRC, 1995;
Sneddon & Fox, 2006). The MRC has a mandate under the Mekong River agreement of 1995
to organize SEA and EIA studies (Interviewee 13). The MRC provided technical and
financial resource for the SEA study of the MRB hydropower plans. Additionally, the MRC
arranged meetings and consultative sessions for SEA consultants to ensure support from all
regional governments and institutions during the SEA study (Interviewee 13).
Rational for the SEA of the Mekong Hydropower Plans
Figure 1. Mekong River Basin Hydropower
Projects (Source: Map of courtesy group on
international agriculture research (CGIAR)
challenge programme on water and food: Data
from MRC and the government of Lao PDR

6. Hydropower development on the Mekong River Basin (MRB) is a historical strategic concern
and asked for an Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) study to document potential
opportunities and risks of hydropower plans (Reid, 2010). The lobbing and advocacy of non-
governmental organizations (NGOs), environmental groups and networks helped Mekong
River Commission (MRC) to organize a study for the Mekong mainstream hydropower plans
(Suhardiman, Giordano, & Molle, 2015). International donors pressure on MRC made
possible a study for 12-hydropower plans at Mekong mainstreams to document socio-
environmental concerns (Suhardiman et al.2015). The SEA conducted to fulfil the gaps in
regional planning and documentation of impacts of the 12-hydropower plans on MRB
(Interviewee P13).The justification for the SEA study were the twelve hydropower
development plans proposed for Lao, Lao-Thai and Cambodia at the mainstream of the
Mekong river by lower Mekong basin sharing countries and private investors (Grumbine et
al., 2012; ICEM, 2010). The Lower Mekong Countries (LMC) have not developed any
master hydropower plan for Mekong River Basin (MRB) development and this provided a
justification for the SEA study of the MRB (Interviewee 13). The basis for the SEA of the
MRB hydropower plans was, to have a regional consultation in order to make fair decisions
at the Mekong River Commission (MRC) level (Interviewee 13). Furthermore, there was
limited information about cost and benefits of mainstream hydropower plans and this was the
major reason for the SEA study (Reid, 2010).
The Mekong river agreement of 1995 requests lower Mekong River Basin (MRB) countries
to discuss proposed projects among themselves before any decision is being taken and this
provided the justification for the SEA study (Interviewee 12). The Mekong River
Commission (MRC) has the mandate to document socio-environmental concerns from
development interventions within lower MRB and sustainable development of river basin
(Interviewees P12 and P13). Another reason for the SEA study of hydropower plans was that
EIA and other assessment methods provided contradictory assessment on socio-ecological
and economical impacts of hydropower plans on Mekong River Basin (MRB) (Interviewee
13). So therefore the Mekong River Commission (MRC) decided to supervise the SEA of
mainstream hydropower and dam projects planned by lower Mekong basin countries and
private investors (Reid, 2010). The aim of the SEA were to document potential opportunities
and risks of such dams and hydropower plans in the Mekong River Basin and associated
biodiversity (ICEM, 2010).
Methodology and stakeholders participation in the SEA of the Mekong River Basin

7. The lower Mekong River Basin (MRB) sharing countries decided in 1998 to develop an
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) strategy for the trans-boundary impacts assessment
studies (ERM, 2002). The aim of strategy was to achieve sustainable development vision of
Mekong River Commission (ERM, 2002). Mekong River Commission (MRC) developed the
EIA guidelines of 2002 and the trans-boundary SEA guidelines 2010 (ELI, 2009; ERM,
2002; ICEM, 2010). The trans-boundary EIA/SEA guidelines of the MRC consisting on three
pillars (e.g. a structure harmony, direction for implementation of agreement and an
organizational support system) (ELI, 2009). The EIA guidelines of the MRC of 2002
provides components for the SEA studies and strengthening the trans-boundary SEA
methodology (ERM, 2002; ICEM, 2010). For the SEA study of the MRB hydropower plans
the EIA guidelines of MRC 2002 and the trans-boundary SEA guidelines of 2010 were used
(ICEM, 2010). The SEA study of hydropower plans of the MRB followed steps as EIA but
scope was larger in terms geographical area, time and space (ICEM, 2010). Although, the
SEA of the Mekong River Basin (MRB) hydropower plans conducted in four phases
including scoping, baseline assessment, impacts assessment and mitigation measures (ICEM,
2010).
The SEA study of the Mekong River Basin (MRB) hydropower plans conducted in
collaboration with 60 regional line agencies, 40 community based organizations, non-
governmental organizations and international organizations to record their opinions and
experiences (ICEM, 2010). Moreover, one of the aims of the SEA study of the Mekong
hydropower plans was widely consultation with all key stakeholders for wise decisions
(Interviewee 13). Furthermore, the consultative sessions with different organization
facilitated by Mekong River Commission (MRC) for inclusion of their experience regarding
socio-environmental impacts of hydropower plans (ICEM, 2010). The stakeholders of
Mekong River Basin (MRB) highlighted some important issues during consultative sessions
about emerging energy demands in Mekong sharing countries and alternatives (ICEM, 2010).
However, all important perceptions of strategic stakeholders and communities included in the
SEA document of MRB hydropower plans (ICEM, 2010).
Key findings of SEA of the Mekong River Basin
The major findings of the Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) of the Mekong River
Basin (MRB) included, that construction of these 12-hydropower plans (Appendix B) on the
mainstream would result in approximately 15,000 Mega Watt (MW) which would fill only

8. 8% of the regional demand by 2025 (Grumbine & Xu, 2011). The Lao PDR will gain a
maximum benefit of 70% ($ 2.6 billion/year), Cambodia 30% (1.2 billion/year), Thailand
and Viet Nam will get only 12% and 5% respectively (ICEM, 2010). The gross income from
hydropower production will be approximately $ 3.7 billion per year and in the initial 25 years
most of the income will go to investors and developers as defined in agreements of plans
(Grumbine & Xu, 2011). Approximately $ 500 million per year is expected to be lost in terms
of fisheries, nutrients and agriculture crops (Grumbine & Xu, 2011). In fisheries production
between 550,000 to 880,000 tonnes is expected to be lost after implementation of the plans
(ICEM, 2010). Lao PDR and Cambodia will lose approximately 30% protein source in
country while these dams will produce only 10% of lose fisheries in these damming sites or
plans sites (ICEM, 2010).
The weak capacities of the regional and national institutions will add further challenges for
effective management and implementation of mitigation plans, hence ultimately further
losses will be expected (ICEM, 2010). Similarly, the total annual sediments load of the
Mekong River is approximately 160-165 million tonnes/year and upper Mekong dams are
trapping almost 50% sediment load (ICEM, 2010). Implementation of the 12-hydropower
plans will reduce a further 25% sediments load, which will create serious disruption in the
river's ecosystem integrity and habitats (ICEM, 2010). The primary productivity of the
Mekong river basin will be approximately reduced with 12-27% due to trapping of 75% of
the nutrients load in these dams (ICEM, 2010). Almost 40% of the wetlands are adjacent to
the Mekong mainstream and 17% of these wetlands either will be dry or inundated due to the
hydropower plans (ICEM, 2010). Lastly, approximately 2.1 million people will suffer
directly and indirectly from the plans of which 106,942 people directly (ICEM, 2010).
Factors and conditions of successful SEA study inthe Mekong River Basin
The Mekong river agreement of 1995 and Prior Notification and Consultation Procedures of
2003 provided legal cover for the Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) of Mekong
River Basin (MRB) (Interviewee P12 and P13).The Prior Notification and Consultation
Procedure of 2003 assisted to introduce the SEA for the MRB hydropower plans (Interviewee
13). The Mekong River Commission (MRC) is arguably strong intergovernmental platform
for the trans-boundary SEA studies (Keskinen & Kummu, 2010). The initiative of sustainable
hydropower (ISH) programme was a key success factors for the SEA study of the Mekong
River Basin (MRB) hydropower plans (Suhardiman et al.2015). The regional SEA studies

9. provided foundation and key information for the SEA study of the MRB hydropower plans
(Interviewee 12). One of the key strengths for the SEA study of the Mekong River Basin
(MRB) hydropower plans was collaboration with regional line agencies, community based
organizations, non-governmental organizations and international development organizations
(ICEM, 2010). The financial support of the government of Japan and Finland for the SEA
was a successful input for the SEA study of the MRB hydropower plans (Suhardiman et
al.2015). The political support of the lower Mekong basin sharing countries was a key
strength for the SEA study of the Mekong River Basin (MRB) hydropower plans
(Interviewee 12). The continuous studies including environmental criteria for hydropower
development, Impacts of hydropower development on fisheries and livelihoods and basin
development studies provided baseline information for the SEA study of the MRB
hydropower plans (ICEM, 2010; Keskinen & Kummu, 2010). Furthermore, stakeholders
participation, strategic planning cycle and public awareness provided further strengths for the
SEA study of the MRB (ICEM, 2010).
SEA contribution to trans-boundary Mekong River Basin management
The Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) addresses broader strategic concerns in the
case of the Mekong River Basin (MRB) study (Interviewee P12 and P13). The SEA study
contributed four scenarios included no dams, postpone of plans, steadily development, and
ensue for implementation of plans (ICEM, 2010). The SEA contributed alternative
development strategies and depicted the socio-environmental concerns from
hydropowerplans (ICEM, 2010). The SEA supported planning and management process via
documented the current and future opportunities and risks from hydropower plans on the
Mekong river basin (Grumbine & Xu, 2011). The SEA investigated baseline information
which would strengthen the projects specific EIAs in future for effective trans-boundary river
management (ICEM, 2010). The SEA study gave recommendations how to mitigate negative
impacts of hydropower plans (ICEM, 2010). However, the SEA study of Mekong River
Basin (MRB) hydropower plans (Appendix B) recommended option 2 "differ decision of
projects for certain time of period" to achieve sustainable development in the region
(Grumbine & Xu, 2011). The SEA of the Mekong hydropower plans had four major
contribution for environmental governance and trans-boundary river management included, it
gave clear picture to donors that environment and sustainable hydropower production should
be priority in funding (Suhardiman et al.2015). Second major contribution was waged public
participation in current regional hydropower decisions (Suhardiman et al.2015). Third major

10. contribution of the SEA study was the SEA brought environmental institutional role in
regional decision making and last major contribution united the downstream countries against
Xayabury dam of the Lao- PDR
Level of success and influence on decisions
Few projects on Mekong mainstream considered for further feasibility studies individually, to
minimize the negative impacts on life, livelihoods and ecosystems (Interviewee 13). The
strategic option (2) deferment of hydropower plans for 10-years endorsed by Vietnam and
Cambodia while Lao-PDR and Thailand went ahead for implementation of Xayaburi
hydropower plan (Reid, 2010). Although, some mitigation measures were considered by Lao-
PDR government to minimize the impacts of Xayaburi dam on Mekong mainstream
(Interviewee 13). The Mekong River Commission (MRC) closely monitoring and organizing
reviews on hydropower policy after every three year to investigate the deferment activities
implementation as recommended by SEA (Reid, 2010).The Vietnam and Cambodia approved
SEA recommendations and postponed their hydropower plans for 10 years (Reid, 2010). The
Mekong River Commission (MRC) recommended several studies included feasibility studies
of the Luang Prabang, Xayaburi hydropower, Pak Chom, Sambor hydropower projects and
EIA studies of the Don Sahong and Thakho hydropower plans (Reid, 2010). The MRC
included SEA recommendations and findings in river basin planning which would help to
consider socio-environmental consideration in decision-making process further (Reid, 2010).
Furthermore, Vietnam allocated 9 million (USD) after SEA study to restore delta and
minimize the impacts of hydropower plans on Mekong River Basin (MRB) (Interviewee 13).
The SEA study initially supported by all lower Mekong countries but in later stages, they not
cooperated well with SEA team. The second major reason for the low success of SEA was
limited consultation or consultation with junior officially, those who have limited worth in
national decisions (Suhardiman et al.2015). Third major reason for the low success of SEA
was high political influence from investors to reject SEA recommendations. The last major
hurdle for the implementation of SEA recommendations was the limited role of the Mekong
River Commission (Suhardiman et al.2015).

11. Case study: 2 Strategic Environmental Assessment of the Mara River Basin
The Mara River is one of the important rivers of East Africa, shared by Kenya and Tanzania
(Mutie, Mati, Home, Gadain, & Gatheny, 2006). The Mara River is one of the trans-boundary
rivers that originates from Mau forest of Kenya and transverses Kenya and Tanzania before
entering into Lake Victoria (Weggoro, 2012). The Mara river transverses two important
ecosystems including the Masai-Mara and Serengeti and sole of surface water in dry season
(Mango, Melesse, McClain, Gann, & Setegn, 2011). The Mara River Basin (MRB) offers
forest, farming activities, grazing land, wetlands, habitats, hunting and fishing opportunities
(Defersha & Melesse, 2012). Likewise, the MRB supports important biodiversity, wetlands
and highest variety of big herbivores on the globe (WWF-ESARPO, 2010b). The basin also
offers diversity in vegetation from forest to savannah and home to important birds and
wildlife species (Nelson et al., 2012). Lastly, the annual wildebeest migration between
Serengeti and Masai-Mara adds further gives importance to the MRB and its associated
landscapes (WWF-ESARPO, 2010b). However, current climate change, human development,
emerging population growth, deforestation, pollution and lack of effective management leads
to serious disruptions in geohydromorphology and biodiversity of the Mara River Basin
(WWF-ESARPO, 2010b).
East Africa Community agreement of 1999 and role of the Lake Victoria Basin
Commission in the SEA study
The East African Community (EAC) signed
an agreement in 1999 for the regional
cooperation and management of joint
resources (EAC, 1999). The EAC
encompassed five countries including
Kenya, Tanzania, Rwanda, Burundi and
Uganda (Weggoro, 2012). The area is rich
with natural resources including rivers,
lakes, biodiversity, wetlands and some of
them are trans-boundary resources shared
by the EAC (Weggoro, 2012). The articles
(111) and (114) of the EAC agreement of 1999 give comprehensive guidelines for the
environmental protection and joint management of shared resources (Weggoro, 2012). Article

12. (111a) of the agreement specifically defines procedures for the joint management of the
trans-boundary resources (EAC, 1999; Weggoro, 2012). In Article (111b) the community
agreed to develop the environmental management strategy, national environmental policies
and the action plan for the protection and conservation of the trans-boundary resources (EAC,
1999; Weggoro, 2012). Under Article (111c) of the agreement EAC agreed to
developcommon environmental policies to control thetrans-boundary environmental pollution
(EAC, 1999). In Article (111d) the community decided the prior and early notification of the
harmful impacts of the development interventions with neighbouring states and consultation
regarding developmental plans at early stage before notification (EAC, 1999). The EAC
agreed in Article (114a) to implement important actions for the effective conservation of the
natural resources in the region (EAC, 1999). The EAC member states agreed in Article
(114c) to develop similar environmental regulations in the region for sustainable
development (EAC, 1999).
The Lake Victoria Basin commission (LVBC) was established in 2003 under Article
114(2)(b)(vi) of the treaty and via Protocol on Environment and Natural Resource
Management of 2006 (EAC, 1999; Weggoro, 2012).The LVBC is a specialized
intergovernmental organization of the East African Community (EAC) and emerged from
Lake Victoria development Programme in 2003 (Nelson et al., 2012; Weggoro, 2012). The
LVBC has the mandate to organize studies, endorse treaties and manage human interventions
in the Lake Victoria and the basin (Nelson et al., 2012). A SEA was developed as part of a
five year sustainable development programme of the LVBC to ensure sustainable
development and wise use of Mara River Basin (MRB) and associated resources (Nelson et
al., 2012). The SEA implemented by World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) to facilitate the
LVBC in the implementation of their protocols and mandate as set by theEast African
Community (WWF-Kenya, 2010). The WWF organized SEA in collaboration with the
LVBC, United States Agency for International Development (USAID), and the Governments
of Kenya and Tanzania (WWF-Kenya, 2010).
Rational for SEA of Mara River Basin
The main reasons for the SEA study of the Mara River Basin (MRB) were habitat
degradation, charcoal burning, overgrazing, deforestation, invasive species introduction,
pollution, and overexploitation (B. Mati, Mutie S, Home P, Mtalo F, & H, 2005; WWF-
ESARPO, 2010b). The current trends of degradation in the MRB asked for a SEA study to

13. document major strategic issues and new management ideas for the MRB planning (Nelson et
al., 2012). Other grounds for the SEA study of the MRB were agriculture intensification,
conversion of forest and grassland into agricultural area which is ultimately a disruption of
habitats and hydrology of the Mara River Basin(MRB) (Defersha & Melesse, 2012). The
human activities including deforestation, agricultural expansion, human settlement and
natural events are major strategic concerns and provided the justification for the SEA of the
MRB (Dessu & Melesse, 2012). The deforestation of the upper catchment and settlement
along the fragile catchment area were other causes for the SEA study of the MRB (Mati et
al.2008). Overall, the objectives of the Mara river SEA study were to gather new information,
ideas, and scenarios to address strategic concerns regarding development and effective
management of the Mara river basin (Nelson et al., 2012).
Priorities of Mara River Basin SEA study
The Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) in this case study mainly focused on
strategic concerns, organizational and political setup, legislations, policies, plans and
programmes of the Mara River Basin (MRB). The study deeply focused on environmental,
social, economical, constitutional, organizational issues emerging from implementation of
policies, plans and programmes and other development interventions. The SEA study of the
Mara River Basin(MRB) documented past and present socio-ecological and economical
conditions of the basin and associated communities (Nelson et al., 2012). The SEA study of
the MRB explored the role of the national, international and community based organizations
for the MRB management. The SEA study also documented the legal framework,
environmental policies and gaps in these instruments for effective trans-boundary river
management (Nelson et al., 2012). The SEA study prioritized important strategic concerns
and challenges related to the MRB and its associated resource. The SEA study of the Mara
River Basin (MRB) identified three scenarios for coming changes over the next two decades
until 2030 including; (A) investigation of the impacts of current changes without human
actions (B) suppose current unwanted changes are under control (C) proceed current
development actions with overturn harmful types of growth (Nelson et al., 2012). The SEA
study of the Mara River Basin (MRB) developed a vision, policy matrix and guiding map in
consultation with all key stakeholders of the MRB and related communities. Lastly, the SEA
study of the MRB gave recommendations to improve the current situation, sustainable
utilization of MRB and associate resources to achieve sustainable development in the region
(Nelson et al., 2012).

14. Methodology and stakeholders participations for the SEA of Mara River Basin
The SEA study of the Mara River Basin (MRB) was conducted by using the 2005 SEA/EIA
guidelines proposed and adopted by the Lake Victoria Basin Commission (LVBC). However,
methodology shared and consulted with all key stakeholders before implementation. Some
elements of the SEA guidelines of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development (OECD) of 2006 and the SEA guidelines of World Bank of 2011 were included
to strengthen the SEA methodology (Nelson et al., 2012). Furthermore, the SEA study of the
MRB incorporated "SEA methodology for Kenya Forest Act 2006, SEA of the South Africa
for watershed of 2003, SEA guidelines of the Kenya and Tanzania and the SEA report of
WWF 2011 for effective assessment of strategic concerns in the MRB". The SEA process of
the MRB was based on detailed discussion with key stakeholders and investigation of
literature findings (Nelson et al., 2012).
Throughout the SEA process of the Mara River Basin (MRB) stakeholders were involved
including in steps like methodology preparation, analysis of situations, political economy and
institutional analysis, policy analysis, scenarios setting and reviews of the SEA study in 2011.
The views and comments of stakeholders were incorporated during the SEA process and
review of the SEA study, in 2011. The major stakeholders of the MRB management are
governments of Kenya and Tanzania, beside, these governments’ four councils (Tarime,
Rorya, Musoma and Serengeti) of Tanzania and three counties (Nakuru, Bomet and Kericho)
of Kenya actively participated in the SEA study (Nelson et al., 2012). The views and
comments of trans-Mara county councils, Tanzania National Parks (TNP) and LVBC were
done to create ownership. The USAID, African development Bank (ADA), World Bank,
European Union, Global Environmental Facility (GEF), International Union for Conservation
of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) and World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) were
directly and indirectly involved during the SEA study.The SEA study was conducted in two
episodes: in the initial phase extensive consultations were held with principal stakeholders
and a detailed investigation of strategic concerns throughout the Mara River Basin and in a
second phase a detailed assessment of issues, documentation of scenarios and mitigation plan
for effective trans-boundary river management were developed (Nelson et al., 2012).
Key findings of SEA of the Mara River Basin (MRB)
The major findings of the Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) study of the Mara
River Basin (MRB) was that since the last four decades the emerging population, climate

15. change, deforestation, and uncontrolled use of water together dramatically changed the
pristine conditions of the MRB (Nelson et al., 2012). A small population benefits from forest
encroachment but rapid wildlife population decline and poor socio-economic conditions had
severe impacts on downstream communities (WWF-ESARPO, 2010b). Approximately
800,000 people lived around the Mara River Basin (MRB) and the population growth rate is
around 3% per year (Nelson et al., 2012). An average of 50% of agricultural lands increased
in upper catchment with reduced of the 25% of the total forest-covered area since the last
three decades (Nelson et al., 2012; WWF-ESARPO, 2010b). Initially, the Maasai-Mau forest
covered area was approximately 45,000 hectares but due to unclear delineations about 50% of
the forest was removed by private farms holders (WWF-ESARPO, 2010b). Likewise, the
Mara swamp covered area increased 13% since 15 years and these enhancement links with
the human interventions, deforestation and erosion in upper basin of the MRB (Mati et
al.2005).
The current water demand is approximately 25 million cubic per year, but it is predicted that
the demand of water will increase up to 45 million cubic by 2030. The availability of water in
the Mara River Basin (MRB) will change expected increasing mean annual temperature and
droughts conditions (Nelson et al., 2012; WWF-ESARPO, 2010a). The reserve flow of the
river Mara in wet season is on average 35% at the Kenya and Tanzania borders and meets the
local demand, but in the dry season the mean monthly reserve flow dramatically decreased
since the last 26 years (WWF-ESARPO, 2010a). Generally, MRB water quality assessment
studies documented the quality parameters were within permissible limits of Kenya and
Tanzania standards as well as international guidelines (Nelson et al., 2012; WWF-ESARPO,
2010a).
The biodiversity of the Mara River Basin (MRB)is facing numerous pressures including
habitats loss and fragmentation because of emerging population, farming, settlements, illegal
hunting, overgrazing, deforestation and infrastructure development (WWF-ESARPO, 2010b).
The MRB is home to larger herbivores but presently an average of 1.7% to 1.8% per year
Thomson's Gazelle and Buffalos population decline respectively (WWF-ESARPO, 2010b).
There were no changes recorded in fish species and fish stock in the MRB and associated
tributaries (WWF-ESARPO, 2010a).
Factors and conditions of successful SEA for the Mara River Basin

16. The East African Community (EAC) agreement of 1999 is a legal instrument for the trans-
boundary Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) study of the Mara River Basin (MRB)
(Weggoro, 2012). The Protocol on Environment and Natural Resource Management of 2006
also gives directions for the trans-boundary SEA studies at EAC level (EAC, 2006; Weggoro,
2012). Previous studies including "Biodiversity policy and action plan for sustainable
management of Mara River Basin (MRB)'' and ''The assessment of Reserve Flows for the
Mara" provided vital information for the SEA study of the MRB (WWF-ESARPO, 2010a,
2010b). The Lake Victoria Basin Commission (LVBC) is an important organ of East African
Community (EAC) ensuring sustainable development in the region and provides a platform
for SEA of the Mara River Basin (MRB) (Weggoro, 2012). The SEA study was part of five
programmes of Lake Victoria Basin Commission (LVBC) implemented by Word Wide Fund
For Nature (WWF) Kenya, which provided a comprehensive base for the SEA study of Mara
River Basin (WWF-Kenya, 2010). The trans-boundary SEA guidelines of the LVBC of 2005
helped the assessment process in its local context during the SEA study of the Mara River
Basin (EAC, 2005; Nelson et al., 2012). The strategic consultation was helpful to indentify
major strategic concerns during the SEA study of the Mara River Basin (WWF-Kenya,
2010). The financial and technical support of USAID, WWF and governments of Kenya and
Tanzania was vital support for the SEA of the Mara River Basin (Nelson et al., 2012). The
academic literature and reports of regional, national and international organizations provided
baseline information for the SEA of the Mara River Basin (MRB). In addition, all key
stakeholders agreed in 2008 during consultative sessions about serious disruption of MRB
which provided support for the SEA study of the Mara River Basin (WWF-Kenya, 2010).
SEA contribution to trans-boundary Mara River Basin management
The SEA study of the Mara River Basin (MRB) provided essential information about
geohydromorphology, biodiversity, socio-ecological conditions, role of institutions, legal
instruments, and legislations to developed new management ideas for the MRB planning. The
SEA study investigated previous and present socio-ecological conditions of the MRB and
major drivers of change in functions and services of the MRB. The SEA study listed major
challenges for the MRB planning and provided evidences from different studies (Nelson et
al., 2012). The SEA study recorded the role of local, national, regional, and international
organizations for the MRB management. The SEA documented hurdles for implementation
of plans, coordination and management issues for the MBR planning. The SEA study

17. conducted a review about relevant legal instruments and policies of Kenya and Tanzania for
the MRB planning (Nelson et al., 2012).
The SEA study identified three scenarios and these three scenarios were based on present and
past changes in land, population, water, forest, agricultural, socio-economic conditions,
tourism, political economy and priorities of the governments of Kenya and Tanzania. All
stakeholders were agreed on scenario (B) for the MRB management (Nelson et al., 2012).
The SEA study provided a set of actions for the future Mara River Basin (MRB) planning to
minimize the degradation of the MRB. The SEA study listed 25 areas to reforms in policies,
plans, programmes, and development actions to secure the MRB future. The SEA study also
investigated different international trans-boundary river basin planning models for the MRB
planning and suggested to establish a commission specifically for the MRB management in
the region (Nelson et al., 2012).
Level of success and influence on decisions
The Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) study of Mara River Basis (MRB) approved
and adopted by the Lake Victoria Basin Commission (LVBC) of East African Community
(EAC) for the MRB planning (UNESCO, 2010). The SEA included for the MRB planning
and management to conserve Serengeti and Masai-Mara ecosystems (UNESCO, 2010). The
SEA was base on MRB biodiversity strategy and action plan and assessment of reserve flows
studies (Nelson et al., 2012). The council of ministers for Lake Vitoria Basin Commission
(LVBC) approved both documents for the MRB planning in 2009 during a consultative
meeting (WWF-Kenya, 2010). The LVBC developed a comprehensive water distribution
plan for the MRB and integrated key recommendations of the SEA study for sustainable
utilization of MRB. The LVBC reviewed current Mara River Basin (MRB) water allocation
procedures in Kenya and Tanzania to maintain ecosystem integrity.The modern technologies
has been installed on MRB for water obstruction and gaps in legislations were identified to
harmonise in trans-boundary context (LVBC, 2013).
Likewise, the government of Kenya and Tanzania became active since the SEA findings to
re-establish the original boundaries of Mau forest and removed invaders from source of the
Mara River. The Lake Victoria Basin Commission (LVBC) in collaboration with World
Wide Fund for Nature Kenya (WWF- Kenya) developed community based water associations

18. in both Kenya and Tanzania for wise use of the Mara River Basin (MRB). The community
based actions plans has been developed in Kenya and Tanzania to conserve the MRB and
associated biodiversity (WWF-Kenya, 2010). The LVBC developed annual report for council
ministers to monitor SEA recommendations by using policy matrix. Lastly, LVBC set a plan
to review the SEA document after every five year to amendment and incorporate of new
emerging strategic concerns for the effective Mara River Basin (MRB) planning (Nelson et
al., 2012).
Conclusions and Lessons learnt
Trans-boundary SEA studies need special settings and conditions to document the impacts of
the development plans and programmes across the river basin. Trans-boundary river basin
management agreements and protocols are essential conditions for the trans-boundary river
SEA studies. An intergovernmental organization with authority and commitment is important
to execute trans-boundary SEA studies and for implementation of recommendations across
the river basin. Regular studies on the geohydromorphology and biodiversity status of the
river basin provides vital information for SEA studies. An SEA is comparatively expensive
and has a more extensive character than EIA in the case of the river basin management, so a
sufficient financial resources are a condition for a comprehensive SEA study. Local context
SEA methodology and guidelines help the SEA execution authorities and consultants to
document the impacts of the plans in the local context. The role of international, regional,
national and local organizations, is helpful for the SEA consultants to analyse situations,
develop scenarios, document realistic alternatives, develop mitigation measures and for the
identification of recommendations. Political support from river basin sharing countries is
necessary for the trans-boundary SEA study to document strategic concerns of development
plans across the basin. Public awareness and non-governmental organizations’ advocacy and
lobbing are essential to influence decision makers to consider socio-environmental concerns
of development plans in decision-making system. The scopes of the SEA studies of the
Mekong and Mara river basins are quite different and more extensive than other SEA studies
e.g. in developed countries. In the Mekong and Mara river basin, the SEA studies took almost
two years and followed an extensive assessment approach. The level of success of the SEA in
the Mekong and Mara river basins was low because SEA recommendations were either not
accepted or partially implemented in these case studies. Although, SEA brought together all
river basin sharing countries on a table and incorporated historical ignored public perceptions

19. about development and in decision making system. SEA legitimized Lake Victoria Basin
Commission and Mekong River Commission role in trans-boundary river management and
regional decision making system. SEA incorporated environmental institutional role in
hydropower planning and river basin management. Furthermore, these SEA studies become a
point reference for trans-boundary collaboration and management among river basin sharing
countries. The success conditions derived from the SEA studies of the Mekong and Mara
river basins are listed below in Tables 2 and 3.
Strengths for application of SEA in the Chenab River Basin
The majority of interviewees believed that the Indus Water Treaty (IWT) of 1960 would be
one of the success factors for the SEA of the CRB. Interviewee P7 mentioned that the IWT
provides future cooperation mechanism in its article VII and Permanent Indus Commissions
(PICs) roles and responsibilities in article (VIII) to address all matters raising either from the
treaty or from development interventions. Some of the respondents mentioned that the World
Bank (WB) should help both countries to conduct an SEA for effective Chenab River
Basin(CRB) management (P1, P6, P7, and P10). Interviewees P1 and P6 indicated that the
Indus Water Commissions of India and Pakistan could collaborate on such SEA study of the
CRB management. The national SEA experience of Pakistan and India could be used in
transboundary prospective for the CRB planning (Interviewee P9). At the individual project
level Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) studies definitely will provide baseline
information for the SEA study of the CRB (Interviewee P9). Interviewee P10 mentioned that
lobbying and advocacy of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and the international
community could bring both countries together for a SEA study on the CRB. The available
academic literature and experts of both countries could help the SEA study of the CRB
(Interviewee 10). India and Pakistan both have international support and funding
opportunities, hence they can organize an SEA study for the CRB (Interviewee P12).
Weaknesses for application of SEA in the Chenab River Basin
Experts interviewed identified various flaws for application of an SEA on Chenab River
Basin (CRB) management. There is no any single Article and Annexure about socio-
environmental concerns either growing from development or hydropower projects
(interviewees P1, P5, P6 and P9). The Indus Water Treaty of 1960 allows India to develop

20. hydropower under Annexure D on the Chenab River Basin (CRB) but no any article or
annexure addresses the consequences of a series of hydropower projects on the same river
stream (Interviewee P7).This interviewee also mentioned that under Article VII (2) of the
treaty India and Pakistan agreed the exchange of information, but only about hydrology,
project size, and project location. There is no obligation to share environmental assessment
data and studies.
Some of the interviewees indicated that the SEA is new for both countries and its
rudimentary knowledge and experience can be a weakness for SEAapplication in the CRB
(P1, P5, P10, and P11).Interviewees P1, P4, P7, and P10 mentioned that the lack of SEA
experts and experience are major weaknesses for the SEA studies in India and Pakistan. The
lack of reliable data could be a possible weakness for the SEA of the CRB between India and
Pakistan as mentioned by (P2 and P10). The weak coordination and lack of negotiation are
weaknesses between India and Pakistan for the SEA and planning of CRB (Interviewees P2,
P3, and P7). Interviewees P5, P6 and P9 mentioned that the IWT is an old treaty and no
amendments have been recorded since 1960 for instance to include environmental aspects,
which could be one of the possible weaknesses for the SEA of the CRB. Interviewees P7 and
P12added that weak priority for the environment in the national policies of India and Pakistan
is another possible flaw for SEA application of the CRB. The Indus Water commissions of
India and Pakistan also have less environmental experts, which could be a limitation for SEA
of the CRB in the future (P7).
Opportunities for application of SEA in the Chenab River Basin
Some of the interviewees mentioned that India and Pakistan with the help of the World Bank
could incorporate "Environmental considerations" in the treaty by the addition of one article
to support the application of SEA in the Chenab River Basin (CRB) (P1, P2, P4 and P7).
Interviewee P5 mentioned that even India could conduct an SEA study itself for the cascade
hydropower projects on the CRB because most projects are located in their territory. The
Indus Water Commissions could discuss such possibilities for an SEA study of the CBR
because they have the mandate of cooperation and conflicts resolution (Interviewee P6). The
joint management of the Indus River System (IRS) and SEA study to explore potential
opportunities of and risks for the CRB could be an option between India and Pakistan within
the framework of the Indus Water ( Interviewee P7).Interviewee P7 mentioned that article
XII (3) of the treaty provided provisions to modify the treaty with the acceptance of both

21. governments, which could help to include the SEA for CRB planning. Interviewee (P8)
highlighted that it would be good if Pakistan and India could install an effective monitoring
system to minimize the data gaps and this would be helpful for the SEA of the CRB. (P8)
also indicated that India could incorporate SEA in their legislation, which would help a joint
SEA application in the CRB in the future.
Threats/Challenges for application of SEA in the Chenab River Basin
Interviewee (P1) mentioned that the current priorities of Indian and Pakistani authorities are
development instead of sustainable development, which will be a big challenge for a possible
SEA on the CRB. The majority of interviewees noted that Pakistan and India have serious
tensions since 1947 not for water resources as well as for Kashmir, which would be a hurdle
for the SEA of CRB. Interviewee (P5) indicated that the Kashmir issues are not only a risk
for the SEA of CRB management as well as for other relationships. (P5) also responded that
cross border terrorism and lack of trust would create a hurdle for SEA application in the
CRB.Interviewee (P7) responded that climate change and emerging population pressure will
pose challenges for the Indian-Pakistani relationship, as well as for a joint SEA. (P7) also
mentioned that the Indian hegemony, involvement of political leaders, media and armed
forces always created challenges for the Indus Water Commissions for cooperation, and
hence will always remain a major hurdle for a SEA in the CRB.
Discussion
Trans-boundary SEA in the Mekong River Basin
The study of the role of SEA in transboundary river management was based on a review of
two international case studies (SEA in the Mekong and Mara river basins) and selected
interviews with those who were directly or indirectly involved in these studies. The level of
success of these two case studies is not easy to distil from the academic literature and there is
no documentation of the level of success. However, the SEA can be regarded as one of the
most complete and comprehensive assessment tools, but the level of its success depends on
the implementation of the recommendations across river basins (Interviewee 12).
Nonetheless, the SEA of the Mekong strengthened Mekong River Commission (MRC) roles
in transboundary river management. Likewise, the SEA of Mekong hydropower plans
increased Mekong River Commission (MRC) roles from coordinating and advisory body to a

22. key player of the trans-boundary river management and regional decisions (Suhardiman et
al.2015).
Before SEA study, public participation was limited in Mekong hydropower planning and
decisions but SEA incorporated their perceptions and concerns effectively. Furthermore, the
SEA study of the Mekong River Basin (MRB) contributed to developing a joint picture of
strategic issues, realistic alternatives, scenarios, mitigation measures and four strategic
options for hydropower planning in the Mekong region. Moreover, in the case of the Mekong
River Basin (MRB) the SEA is regarded as a planning tool rather than a decision supporting
tool (Interviewee 13). Although, the SEA is quick and less time consuming assessment tool in
developed world but in case of the Mekong the SEA scope was border in term of space, time
and study area (ICEM, 2010). The scope of the Mekong River Basin (MRB) SEA was not
just a strategic impacts assessment of hydropower plans, but deeply focused on the regional
consultation between the four lower Mekong countries (Interviewee 13). Although, the SEA
recommendations were not accepted by Thailand and LaoPDR, due to large economic
benefits and direct foreign investment, Cambodia and Vietnam accepted all recommendations
of the SEA and postponed their plans for ten years. The major reason for the low success of
the SEA in case of Mekong was denied of the recommended strategic option (differ of
hydropower plans for ten years by lower Mekong countries) (Suhardiman et al.2015). The
other reasons for the low success of the SEA included, weak political commitment, lack of
the regional institutional support and limited consultation. Likewise, the real decision makers
in Mekong region are either head of states or ministers (Suhardiman et al.2015). However,
the SEA of the Mekong hydropower plans become a reference point for all lower Mekong
countries either they accepted recommendations or not. The Vietnam and Cambodia opposing
Xayaburi dam by referencing SEA findings and Lao-PDR agreed for further environmental
studies (Suhardiman et al.2015). Furthermore, at least SEA brought together all sectors,
stakeholders and the four countries on a table for the Mekong hydropower planning.
However, the Mekong Agreement of 1995 was one the success conditions for the SEA study
because the Article (3) of the agreement precisely focuses on environment and ecology in
transboundary river development interventions. The Mekong Agreement of 1995 provides the
legal framework for SEA and EIA studies in the lower Mekong region (Interviewee P13) .
The second most successfull condition for the SEA of MRB was the Prior Consultation
Notice of 2003 because prior discussion of plans at the Mekong River Commission (MRC)
guided the SEA study for all hydropower plans. The third most important success factor was

23. the available financial resources because the SEA of the transboundary river required a cross
sectoral investigation and involvement of lot scientists which demanded appropriate budgets.
The fourth most important factor was the political will of all lower Mekong countries to
support the SEA study which made it easier for the MRC and consultants to collect data and
direct interaction with regional institutions and communities to record their perceptions about
hydropower plans. Furthermore, academic research data reduced the efforts of the
organizations to collect data about fisheries, hydrology, socio-economic and ecological
conditions of the Mekong River Basin (MRB) because this information were already
available to incorporate in the SEA study (Reid, 2010).
Trans-boundary SEA in the Mara River Basin
The SEA of the Mara River Basin (MRB) is a pioneer SEA study in transboundary river
basin planning from an African perspective. It was the first time a study covered the Mara
river strategic issues from the Mau forest up to Lake Victoria. The SEA of the Mara River
Basin (MRB) for the first time also brought together all key players on the table to discuss the
alarming changes in the MRB. The SEA study not only documented major strategic drivers
of degradation as well as it recorded present and future of role of all stakeholders in MRB
planning(Nelson et al., 2012). Besides, the roles of the organizations the SEA also
documented basic gaps in implementation of plans, programmes for sustainable utilization
and management of the Mara River Basin (MRB)(Nelson et al., 2012). In addition, the SEA
investigated gaps in the legal frameworks and national policies of Kenya and Tanzania for
sustainable utilization of MRB and conflicts management. However, the SEA of the Mara
River Basin (MRB) gave three scenarios but all stakeholders agreed on Scenario (B)
"predictions for noticeable adverse trends and steadying the basins socio-economical and
ecological conditions by 2030"(Nelson et al., 2012). The Lake Victoria Basin Commission
(LVBC) accepted SEA recommendations, but implementation of recommendations need
technical and financial resources, which are beyond their capacities. The reasons for the low
success of SEA study of the MRB were financial resources and lack of implementation of all
recommendations. However, the LVBC implemented few recommendations to improve the
Mara situation and the LVCB developed a new water allocation plan and installed new water
abstraction technologies in some important locations of the MRB (LVBC, 2013). Kenya is
active to established of Mau forest boundaries to maintain hydrology of Mara River
Basin(WWF-Kenya, 2010). In addition, the LVBC will review the SEA document after every

24. five years to amendment and incorporate of new emerging strategic concerns in Mara River
Basin for effective transboundary river basin planning (Nelson et al., 2012).
However, the East African Community (EAC) agreement of 1999 and the Protocol on the
Environment and Natural Resource Management of 2006 were success conditions for the
SEA of MRB because articles 111 and 114 of the EAC agreement and Article 13 of the
protocol specially describe joint management, cooperation and priorities for environment in
shared water resources management (Weggoro, 2012). The Lake Victoria Basin Commission
(LVBC) played a very important role in the SEA of the MRB because first they considered
SEA in their 5 years sustainable development plan and later they were active to implement
the recommendations of the SEA study (Nelson et al., 2012). Furthermore, the LVBC is an
intergovernmental organization and their neutral role has always been recognised in any
study or planning of the MRB. The available financial resources for the SEA study were
important because the SEA study took almost three years and involved a team of experts.
Most of these financial resources came from international donors, which was one of the very
important contributions for the Mara River Basin (MRB) planning. The political will of the
government of Kenya and Tanzania helped consultants to access the LVBC data bank and
river basin communities to document their perception and views about MRB degradation.
The academic data always reduced efforts of the SEA organizations and in case of Mara the
biodiversity action plan and reserve flow studies of Mara River Basin (MRB) provided
important information to assess the changes in MRB short time (Nelson et al., 2012).
Possible strengths for a SEA study of the Chenabin comparison with the Mara and
Mekong River Basins
The first success condition for the SEA studies of the Mekong and Mara river basins wasthe
Mekong Agreement of 1995 and the East African Community (EAC) agreement of 1999
respectively, which both provided guidelines and legal cover for transboundary SEA studies.
Similarly, Pakistan and India also have a similar kind of treaty commonly known as the Indus
Water Treaty (IWT) of 1960 (Gulhati, 1973). The Mekong Agreement of 1995 and EAC
agreement of 1999 provide guidelines and direction for joint management and cooperation.
Likewise the IWT of 1960 also provides future cooperation mechanism for development of
Indus Rivers System (IRS) in article (VII) of the treaty (Gulhati, 1973). Thus, the IWT could

25. potentially be a strong point for the SEA study of Chenab River Basin (CRB) to resolve
major strategic concerns between India and Pakistan. The second success condition was the
role of the Mekong River Commission (MRC) and Lake Victoria Basin Commission (LVCB)
in organizing the SEA studies for the Mekong and Mara. Similarly, the IWT of 1960 also
provides full authority to Indus commissions of India and Pakistan for implementation of
treaty and cooperation on Indus River System (IRS)(Salman, 2006). Consequently, the Indus
Water Commissions (IWT) of Pakistan and India could arrange a joint SEA study to
document potential opportunities and risk from hydropower development plans on the
Chenab River Basin (CRB).
In the Mekong case study, one of the success conditions for the SEA study was the
mechanism of prior consultation notice for development interventions on the Mekong
mainstream, which provided an important basis for the SEA study. Likewise, in case of the
CRB, India and Pakistan agreed to share information regarding engineering works, before six
months of project starts (Gulhati, 1973). Furthermore, in the Mekong and Mara case studies
the support from international donors was one of the success conditions for the SEA studies.
Similarly, in the case of the CRB, the World Bank is active since 1950s in the finalization of
the treaty and the development and planning of the Indus River System (Kirmani & Guy,
1997). Hence, the World Bank could play a role to support SEA studies to solve conflicts on
Chenab River Basin (CRB). Research studies and academic data provided baseline
information for the SEA studies of Mekong and Mara River Basins. Likewise, in the case of
the CRB, several academic institutions from India and Pakistan have been working on the
CRB to document socio-ecological and biodiversity status and this would help the SEA study
of the CRB
Comparison of weakness for SEA of Chenab River Basin with Mara and Mekong River
Basins
Mekong River Agreement of 1995, precisely describes under article (3) about environmental
protection and ecological balance will be priority in river development planning and trans-
boundary collaboration (MRC, 1995). Similarly, East Africa Community (EAC) agreement
of 1999 also gives comprehensive directions and guidelines under the articles (111) and (114)
for environmental protection and joint management of shared water resources (Weggoro,
2012). Nevertheless, there is no any Article or Annexure in Indus Water Treaty (IWT) of
1960about environmental protection and sustainable development. Conversely, the IWT is

26. comparatively old treaty than Mekong and EAC treaties and environmental was not a major
subject in 1960s treaties. Mekong River Commission (MRC) and Lake Victoria Basin
Commission (LVBC) are joint management platforms for the SEA of Mekong and Mara
River Basins. Nonetheless, in case of Chenab River Basin (CRB), Indus Water of India is
responsible for implementation treaty in Indian territories and Indus Commission of Pakistan
is accountable for Pakistani boundaries. This is a big gap for a joint management and
planning of the Chenab River Basin (CRB) and the SEA studies of the CRB than Mekong
and Mara. The MRC developed their own SEA/EIA guidelines in 2002 and 2010 similarly,
Lake Victoria Basin Commission also have EIA/SEA guidelines of 2005 for trans-boundary
context. Nevertheless, Indus Water Commissions of India and Pakistan not have any trans-
boundary EIA/SEA guidelines for trans-boundary studies (P7).
In case of the Mekong, Lower Mekong River Basin (LMRB) sharing countries sharing all
information about developmental plans, but in case of the Chenab River Basin (CRB) there is
no any obligation to share all information. Similarly, exchanges of information through Indus
Water commissions is limited mostly only about hydrology, project size, location, and design
(Interviewee P7). In case of the Mekong, continuous basin planning and hydropower
development strategy are critical approaches for sustainable development and new
management ideas. Nonetheless, no any such approach recorded between India and Pakistan
for CRB planning. The IWT of allowing India under Annexure D to developed hydropower
projects of certain capacity and design. Although, there is no any article or Annexure in the
IWT about the impacts of a cascade of hydropower plans on same river stream. Likewise the
treaty totally overlooks impacts of hydropower projects on biodiversity, habitats, and
geohydromorphology and this ignorance leaded serious damaged in functions and services of
the CRB. However, the possible factors and conditions of successful SEA of Chenab River
Basin compared with the Mekong and Mara SEA studies listed below in the ( Table 6. and
Table.7)
Opportunities for SEA in case of Chenab River Basin Planning
The SEA studies brings all stakeholders, sectors and communities together for trans-boundary
river management like in case of Mekong and Mara. The India and Pakistan can also come
closer by addition of the environment and environmental assessment studies in Indus Water
Treaty of 1960. Likewise, the Indus Water Treaty of 1960 provides provision in Article XII
(3) of treaty about modification the of treaty with the acceptance of both governments to

27. include necessary subjects for further cooperation (Biswas, 1992). The consideration of the
environment in the treaty will pave the way to SEA and Cumulative impact assessment (CIA)
studies on the Chenab River Basin (CRB). The SEA of Chenab River Basin (CRB) will
provide a platform for India and Pakistan to discuss strategic issues, realistic alternatives and
mitigation plans for a cascade of hydropower plans on CRB, alike Mekong and Mara case
studies. Furthermore, this SEA study of CRB will be a test case study for whole Indus River
System and will be a reference point for sustainable development of Chenab River Basin
(CRB) and hydropower planning, like the case studies of Mekong and Mara. The SEA study
of the CRB will enhanced the Indus Water Commissions roles in trans-boundary river
management and regional decision making system as recorded in Mekong and Mara. In
addition, this study will provide opportunity to document public perceptions of both sides
about hydropower plans as found in case studies of Mekong and Mara.
Furthermore, India is mostly applying Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) studies for its
hydropower planning but these studies do not address cumulative impacts of a cascade of the
hydropower plans on upper Chenab catchment (Erlewein, 2013). Similarly, Indiadoes need to
incorporate SEA and CIA studies for consideration of socio-environmental concerns of
development plans on upper CRB (Erlewein, 2013). India and Pakistan could install an
effective monitoring system and stations along the CRB to exchanges hydrological
information and biodiversity status and this information will not only help SEA studies as
well as it will provide vital information about river conditions and status of biodiversity.
However, joint management and SEA study could be options between India and Pakistan
within the framework of the Indus Water Treaty instead of only cooperating on the Indus
water ways. India has an opportunity to review its hydropower generation policy on the same
river basin (P7) and the application of SEA studies is an option to explore potential
opportunities and risks associated with upper Chenab hydropower plans (Erlewein, 2013)
Possible risks/challenges for a SEA of the Chenab River Basin in comparison with the
Mara and Mekong River Basins
Several risks and challenges are identified in this study for the SEA of the Chenab River
Basin (CRB) in comparison with the Mara and Mekong River Basins. The level of success of
the SEA studies in both Mekong and Mara were low successful because of least political
priority and the lack of the implementation of recommendations. In this regard, the first
challenge for the SEA of Chenab River Basin (CRB) isrelated to the weak political priority

28. of India and Pakistan for environmental issues. Because, the energy demand has been
increasing in both countries and hydropower plans require only initial cost of investment and
at the same time provide long term benefits and income from Chenab hydropower plans
(Interviewee P7). Both India's and Pakistan's priority at the moment is development, and not
immediately sustainable development, to address the current emerging demands of
population(Khoshoo, 2008; Upadhyay & Alam, 2014). The second major challenge for the
SEA of the CRB is political, media and armed forces interference in the role and mitigation
measures ensured.
The Mekong and Mara River Basins sharing countries relying on international support and
donors will consider SEA findings before allocate any funding for the Mekong hydropower
plans or Mara development interventions. Furthermore, SEA activated Kenya government to
restore Mau forest which was the ultimate demand of government Tanzania to maintain Mara
River flow in future. SEA process either in East Africa or Mekong sensitized the
communities, institutions and regional environmental players about the impacts of the
development on life, livelihoods and ecosystems. However, SEA fortrans-boundary river
context requires special settings and conditions includedtrans-boundary river management
agreements, technical and financial resources, a competent authority, local context
methodology, reliable data and political support. However, the success and influence of SEA
studieswere low in the Mekong and Mara because the success of the SEA studies depends on
implementation of recommendation across the river basin. Although, the trans-boundary SEA
of Mekong and Mara showed that technical findings has less worth in front of political
decisions in these countries and the country itself have authority to decide whether the need
sustainable development or only development in river basins. Chenab River Basin (CRB)
complies several possible factors and conditions of successful SEA study like the Mekong
and Mara SEA case studies. These factors and conditions includes, Indus Water Treaty of
1960, Indus Water Commissions, World Bank support, monitoring and academic data,
obligation of prior consultation and financial resource. Although, some success factors and
conditions are missing in the case of Chenab River Basin (CRB) for the SEA study, including
joint management approach, trans-boundary SEA/EIA guidelines, political support and basin
management plan. Recommendations

29. Strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats of application of SEA in the Chenab
River Basin
Based on the results presented in the previous sections, this section will identify possible
strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats for SEA implementation in the Chenab
River Basin (CRB). These strengths and weakness are then compared with conditions and
factors of successful SEA studies of the Mekong and Mara river basin; whether, these
possible strengths are matching or not with the Mekong and Mara case studies. However, the
possible strengths, weakness, opportunities, and threats for the SEA of CRB listed below in
the (Table 4.).
Policy recommendations derived from the insights from this study include
The policy recommendations firstly include that there is a need to update the Indus Water
treaty to include ''environment'' as an official word of the treaty. Secondly, the World Bank
could help both parties not only in treaty amendment as well as to organize a SEA study to
explore potential opportunities and risks of a cascade of hydropower plans on the Chenab
River Basin (CRB). Beside this, the joint management approach could be introduced within
the framework of the Indus Water Treaty (IWT) rather than only cooperation on Indus
Waterways. India and Pakistan need to develop an effective monitoring system on the Indus
waterways for documentation of changes in geohydromorphology and biodiversity and the
Indus Water Commissions need more technical and financial resources for effective
monitoring and conflicts management. In addition, the CRB is a more conflicting basin
between the two countries, they need to introduce SEA on a pilot base to investigate its
potential effectiveness, then it will be helpful for them to replicate on other Indus System
tributaries. Beside SEA, they can also adopt Cumulative Impacts Assessment studies to
explore the potential and risks of developments in the Indus River System. As the role of
SEA in river basin management and conflicts resolving is rare in the world, thus for further
research, it would be better to explore the SEA role in further studies.

30. References
Ahmad, S. (2012). Water insecurity in Pakistan and India (pp. 02-06). Washington, DC: The
Atlantic Council.
Albrecht, E. (2008). Implementing the Espoo Convention in Transboundary EIA between
Germany and Poland. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 28(6), 359-365.
Alebel et al. (2010). The Challenges of Integrated Management of Mekong River Basin in
Terms of People’s Livelihood. Journal of Water Resource and Protection, 2(1), 61-
68. doi: :10.4236/jwarp.2010.21007
Biswas, A. K. (1992). Indus Water Treaty: the negotiating process. Water International,
17(4), 201-209.
Coates, D. (2001). Biodiversity and fisheries management opportunities in the Mekong River
Basin (pp. 09-13). Vientiane: Mekong River Commission.
De Stefano, L., Duncan, J., Dinar, S., Stahl, K., Strzepek, K. M., & Wolf, A. T. (2012).
Climate Change and the Institutional Resilience of International River Basins. Journal
of Peace Research, 49(1), 193-209.
Defersha, M. B., & Melesse, A. M. (2012). Field-Scale Investigation of the Effect of Land
Use on Sediment Yield and Runoff Using Runoff Plot Data and Models in the Mara
River basin, Kenya. CATENA, 89(1), 54-64. doi: 10.1016/j.catena.2011.07.010
Dessu, S. B., & Melesse, A. M. (2012). Modelling the rainfall–runoff process of the Mara
River basin using the Soil and Water Assessment Tool. Hydrological Processes,
26(26), 4038-4049.
EAC. (1999). East African Community Treaty - 1999 (pp. 94-100). Nairobi: East African
Community (EAC) Secretariat.
EAC. (2005). Transboundary Environmental Assessment Guidelines for Shared Ecosystems
in East Africa. (pp. 10-21). Arusha: East African Community (EAC) Secretariat.
EAC. (2006). Protocol on Environment and Natural Resources Management. Keyna: East
African Community (EAC) Secretariat.
ELI. (2009). An Assessment of the Draft Mekong River Commission TbEIA Framework (pp.
02-56). Washington, D.C: Environmental Law Institute (ELI).
Erlewein, A. (2013). Disappearing rivers -The Limits of Environmental Assessment for
Hydropower in India. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 43(43), 135-143.
doi: 10.1016/j.eiar.2013.07.002

31. ERM. (2002). Development of an EIA/SEA System for the Lower Mekong Basin:
Background Review (pp. 01-14). London: Environmental Resources Management
(ERM).
Fernanda, F. W., Santos, M. A. d., & Duran Martins, I. (2014). Hydropower Expansion and
Analysis of the Use of Strategic and Integrated Environmental Assessment Tools in
Brazil. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 37(37), 750-761. doi:
.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.04.071
Furlong, K., Petter Gleditsch, N., & Hegre, H. (2006). Geographic Opportunity and
Neomalthusian Willingness: Boundaries, Shared Rivers, and Conflict. International
Interactions, 32(1), 79-108.
Grumbine et al. (2012). Mekong hydropower: drivers of change and governance challenges.
Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 10(2), 91-98. doi: 10.1890/110146
Grumbine, R. E., & Xu, J. (2011). Environment and Development-Mekong Hydropower
Development. Science, 332(6026), 178-179. doi: 10.1126/science.1200990
Gulhati, N. D. (1973). Indus Waters Treaty: An Exercise in International Mediation.
Bombay: Allied Publishers.
ICEM. (2010). Strategic Environmental Assessment of Hydropower on The Mekong
Mainstream. (pp. 02-23). Hanoi: International Center for Environmental Management
(ICEM).
Jacobs, J. W. (1995). Mekong Committee History and Lessons for River Basin Development.
Geographical Journal, 161(2), 135-148.
Jacobs, J. W. (2002). The Mekong River Commission: transboundary water resources
planning and regional security. Geographical Journal, 168(4), 354-364. doi:
10.1111/j.0016-7398.2002.00061.x
Keskinen, M., & Kummu, M. (2010). Impact Assessment in the Mekong—Review of
Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) & Cumulative Impact Assessment (CIA)
(pp. 11-15). Helsinki: Aalto University.
Khan, M. R. (2013). Crucial Water Issues between Pakistan and India, CBMs, and the Role
of Media. South Asian Studies, 28(1), 213.
Khoshoo, T. N. (2008). Environmental Concerns and Strategics (Third ed.). New Delhi: APH
Publishing.
King, R. M., & Noël, R. (2011). Strategic Environmental Assessment as a Tool to Develop
Power in Transboundary Water Basin Settings. International Journal of Social

32. Ecology and Sustainable Development, 2(4), 1-11. doi: DOI:
10.4018/jsesd.2011100101
Kirmani, S. S., & Guy, J.-M. (1997). Fostering riparian cooperation in international river
basins: The World Bank at its best in development diplomacy (Vol. 335). Washington,
DC: World Bank.
LVBC. (2013). Mara River Basin-Wide Water Allocation Plan. Kenya: Lake Victoria Basin
Commission (LVBC).
Mango, L. M., Melesse, A. M., McClain, M. E., Gann, D., & Setegn, S. G. (2011). Land Use
and Climate Change Impacts on the Hydrology of the Upper Mara River Basin,
Kenya: Results of a Modeling Study to Support Better Resource Management.
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 15(7), 2245-2258.
Mati, B., Mutie S, Home P, Mtalo F, & H, G. (2005). Land Use Changes in the
Transboundary Mara Basin: A threat to Pristine Wildlife Sanctuaries in East Africa.
Paper presented at the 8th International River Symposium, Brisbane,.
Mati, B. M., Mutie, S., Gadain, H., Home, P., & Mtalo, F. (2008). Impacts of Land-
Use/Cover Changes on the Hydrology of the Transboundary Mara River,
Kenya/Tanzania. Lakes & Reservoirs: Research & Management, 13(2), 169-177. doi:
10.1111/j.1440-1770.2008.00367.x
Mirza, N. M. (2008). Water, War, and Peace: Linkages and Scenarios in India-Pakistan
Relations. (Master), University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg. (37)
Monica, F. T., & Hanusch, M. (2012). Strategic Environmental Assessment: The State of the
Art. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 30(1), 15-24. doi:
10.1080/14615517.2012.666400
MRC. (1995). Agreement on the Cooperation for the Sustainable Development of the Mekong
River Basin. Vientiane: Mekong River Commission (MRC).
MRC. (2003). State of the Basin Report. Phnom Penh: Mekong River Commission (MRC).
MRC. (2011). IWRM-Based Basin Development Strategy for the Lower Mekong Basin (pp.
01-02). Vientiane: Mekong River Commission (MRC).
Mutie, S. M., Mati, B., Home, P., Gadain, H., & Gatheny, A. (2006). Evaluating Land Use
Change Effects on River Flow Using USGS Geospatial Stream Flow Model in Mara
River Basin, Kenya. Paper presented at the 2nd Workshop of the EARSeL SIG on
Land Use and Land Cover, Center for Remote Sensing of Land Surfaces, Bonn.

33. Nadeem, O., & Hameed, R. (2008). Evaluation of environmental impact assessment system
in Pakistan. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 28(8), 562-571. doi:
10.1016/j.eiar.2008.02.003
Nelson et al. (2012). The Trans-Boundary Mara River Basin Strategic Environmental
Assessment (pp. 01-100). Kenya: Lake Victoria Basin Commission
Reid, J. C. (2010). Strategic Environmental Assessment and Hydropower River Basin
Planning. (pp. 01-27). Australia: International Centre for Environmental Management.
Salman, S. M. (2006). International water disputes: A new breed of claims, claimants, and
settlement institutions. Water International, 31(1), 2-11.
Sneddon, C., & Fox, C. (2006). Rethinking transboundary waters: A critical hydropolitics of
the Mekong basin. Political Geography, 25(2), 181-202. doi:
.org/10.1016/j.polgeo.2005.11.002
Sridhar, S. (2005). Indus Waters Treaty. Security Research Review, 1(3).
Suhardiman, D., Giordano, M., & Molle, F. (2015). Between interests and worldviews: the
narrow path of the Mekong River Commission. Environment and Planning C:
Government and Policy, 33, 199-217. doi: 10.1068/c11191
UNESCO. (2010). Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural
Heritage (pp. 28). Brasilia: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural
Organization (UNESCO).
Upadhyay, S., & Alam, A. R. (2014). Shared Environmental Concerns between India and
Pakistan. International Security(1), 36.
Uprety, K., & Salman, S. M. A. (2011). Legal Aspects of Sharing and Management of
Transboundary Waters in South Asia: Preventing Conflicts and Promoting
Cooperation. Hydrological Sciences Journal, 56(4), 641-661. doi:
10.1080/02626667.2011.576252
USAID. (2010). Rapid Basin-wide Hydropower Sustainability Assessment Tool (RSAT) (pp.
01). Phnom Penh USAID.
Weggoro, N. C. (2012). EAC Governance Structure with Regard to Watershed Management.
Paper presented at the Symposium on Science-Policy Gaps in Water Governance,
Ontario.
WWF-ESARPO. (2010a). Assessing Reserve Flows for the Mara River (pp. 01-03). Nairobi:
World Wide Fund for Nature - Eastern Southern African Regional Programme Office
(WWF-ESARPO).

34. WWF-ESARPO. (2010b). Biodiverstiy Strategy and Action Plan for Sustainable
Management of the Mara River Basin (pp. 02-48). Nairobi: World Wide Fund for
Nature - Eastern Southern African Regional Programme Office (WWF-ESARPO).
WWF-Kenya. (2010). Managing the Mara River in Kenya and Tanzania. Retrieved 13-02-
2015, from http://wwf.panda.org/who we are/wwf offices/tanzania/?uProjectD=9F749
Ziv et al. (2012). Trading-off fish biodiversity, food security, and hydropower in the Mekong
River Basin. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 109(15), 5609-5614. doi:
10.1073/pnas.1201423109

35. Table 1. Summary of factors and conditions of successful SEA of the Mekong River
Basin
S # Factors and conditions of successful SEA for the Mekong river basin
1 The Mekong River agreement of 1995 and Mekong River Commission
2 Obligation of prior consultation and notification on development plans
3 Availability of financial resource to conduct theSEA study
4 Continuous strategic planning cycle and The Initiative of sustainable hydropower
programme of Mekong River Commission
5 Stakeholder participation
6 Public awareness
7 Continuous studies about the impacts of hydropower plans on fisheries, livelihoods,
and biodiversity and regional SEA studies
8 Transboundary EIA/SEA guidelines of 2002 and 2010

36. Table 2. Summary of factors and conditions of successful SEA of the Mara River Basin
S # Factors and conditions of successful SEA for the Mara River Basin
1 The EAC agreement of 1999 and the protocol on environment and natural resource
management of 2006.
2 Previous studies, including "Biodiversity policy and action plan and The assessment
of Reserve Flows for the Mara
3 Lake Victoria Basin Commission with authority and commitment
4 Transboundary SEA/EIA guidelines of LVBC 2005
5 USAID, WWF and governments of Kenya and Tanzania support
6 Availability of financial resource
7 Political support from government and community
8 Continuous studies about the impacts of development activities on river hydrology,
biodiversity and livelihoods provided baseline information for SEA MRB

37. Table 3. Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats for SEA in Chenab River
Basin (CRB)
Strengths Weaknesses Opportunities Threats
 Indus Water
Treaty
 Permanent
Indus
Commission
 Role of Third
Party
 Cooperation's
and exchange
of data on
engineering
works
 Possibility to
amend treaty
 SEA
legislation in
Pakistan
 SEA studies
experience of
both countries
 Availability of
funding and
supports from
donors
 EIA findings
Of individual
projects
 Availability of
academic
literature
 Availability of
experts
 No provision in treaty
to address
environmental
concerns
 No amendment in
treaty since 1960
 Rudimentary
knowledge about SEA
and trans-boundary
SEA
 Few experts of SEA in
the region
 Lack of reliable data
and sources
 Weak coordination
between commissions
 Lack of river
management and SEA
experts in Indus Water
commissions
 Lack of research and
effective impact
assessment studies
 Less funding in Indus
Water commissions
 Lack of negotiation of
disputes
 The addition of an article in
treaty to include the
environment
 Joint environmental
assessment studies
 Conduct SEA studies on
All Indus River Basin
 Exchanges of
Environmental assessment
reports
 Introduction of an effective
monitoring system and
stations
 SEA inclusion as legal
requirement for river
development policies, plans
and programmes in India
 Joint exploration the
potentials and risks Chenab
River
 Exchange of experiences
and research findings
 Trainings of Indus Water
commission staff on SEA
and Environmental
monitoring
 Geopolitical and
boarders
tensions between
India and
Pakistan
 Kashmir issue
 Terrorism issues
 Lack of trust
 Rapid
population
growth
 Climate change
implications on
rivers
 Pollution
 Indian
hegemony
 Political
willingness and
priorities
 Development
without
environmental
consideration
 Beaurocratic
burials

38. Table 4. Comparison of the success factors and conditions for the SEA of the Mekong
with Chenab Situation
S
#
Success conditions for the SEA of Mekong
Conditions present/ not or partially
present in Case of Chenab
1 The Mekong River agreement of 1995 and
Mekong River Commission Yes
2 Obligation of prior consultation and
notification on development plans
Partially
3 Availability of financial resource to conduct
theSEA study
Yes
4 Continuous strategic planning cycle and
Initative of sustainable hydropower
programmening
Not
5 Stakeholder participation Not
6 Public awareness Partially
7 Continuous studies about the impacts of
hydropower plans on fisheries, livelihoods, and
biodiversity and regional SEA studies
Partially
8 Trans-boundary EIA/SEA guidelines of 2002
and 2010
Not

39. Table 1. Summary of possible factors and conditions of successful SEA of the Chenab
River Basin
S # Success factors for the SEA Chenab River Basin
1 Indus Water Treaty of 1960 provides guidelines for further cooperation and
addressing issues between India and Pakistan.
2 Indus Water Commissions of India and Pakistan could be a vital platform to supervise
SEA studies.
3 The SEA experience of India and Pakistan within countries can be replicated in trans-
boundary prospective.
4 World Bank's role is important to increase cooperation between two countries for
joint management ideas.
5 International development organizations provide support India and Pakistan to
improve their environmental assessment procedures and skills of officials.
6 Academic research, regional SEA/EIA studies and feasibility studies could be a good
source of information for SEA of Chenab River Basin
7 Hydrological and weather monitoring stations already exists on Indus Water System it
could providedata for the SEA study of the CRB

40. Table 6. Comparison of the success factors and conditions for the SEA of the Mara with
Chenab Situation
S # Success conditions for Mara River SEA Conditions present/not or partially
present in Case of Chenab
1 The EAC agreement of 1999 and the protocol
on environment and natural resource
management of 2006.
Yes
2 Previous studies, including "Biodiversity
policy and action plan and The assessment of
Reserve Flows for the Mara
Partially
3 Lake Victoria Basin Commission with
authority and commitment
Yes
4 Trans-boundary SEA/EIA guidelines of
LVBC 2005
Not
5 USAID and WWF support Yes
6 Availability of financial resource Yes
7 Political support from government Not
8 Continuous studies about the impacts of
development activities on river hydrology,
biodiversity and livelihoods provided baseline
information for SEA MRB
Partially