The UN Watercourses Convention: Regional and Basin Perspectives

The UN Watercourses Convention: Regional and Basin Perspectives
XIV World Water Congress
25-29th September 2011
Porto de Galinhas, Brazil
Dr Alistair Rieu-Clarke
22nd August 2011

Regional and Basin Assessments
Europe
Central America
Aral Sea
West Africa
East Africa
Congo
South-east Asia
Southern Africa
South America

West Africa
East Africa
Congo
Southern Africa

Aral Sea
SE Asia

Aims and objectives

UN General Assembly Resolution 2669(XXV), 8th December 1970
Comments and observations received from governments, UN Doc. A/CN.4/447 and Add. 1-3, 1993

62 of the world’s 263 international river basins have established river basin organisations in place.
Dombrovsky, I., ‘Integration in the Management of International Waters: Economic Perspectives on a Global Policy Discourse’, 14(4) Global Governance 455-477 (2008)
“An examination of these agreements reveals that the majority cover multilateral basins (shared by three or more states), even though 67% of the world’s 263 international rivers are bilateral (shared by two states)(Wolf 1998). To govern multilateral basins, states have tended to select bilateral treaties rather than multilateral treaties (Song and Whittington 2004). Consequently, the conventional wisdom that has evolved is that negotiations are more likely to take place over multilateral rather than bilateral basins and that the byproduct of these talks is more likely to be bilateral rather than multilateral treaties (Conca et al. 2006)”
Zawahri, N. & Mitchell, S. ‘Fragmented Governance of International Rivers: Negotiating Bilateral versus Multilateral Treaties’, 55 International Studies Quarterly 835-858 (2011)
“Existing agreements are sometimes not sufficiently effective to promote integrated water resources management due to problems at the national and local levels such as inadequate water management structures and weak capacity in countries to implement the agreements as well as shortcomings in the agreements themselves (for example, inadequate integration of aspects such as the environment, the lack of enforcement mechanisms, limited – sectoral – scope and non-inclusion of important riparian States)”
(UN-Water, Transboundary Waters: Sharing Benefits, Sharing Responsibilities, Thematic Paper, 2008)

A global framework convention
3 key areas where a framework agreement might be of benefit, namely where,
no governing regime for transboundary waters exists
not all basin states are parties to an existing agreement, and
an agreement only partially covers matters addressed by the rules

East, West and Southern Africa

No basin-wide agreement
East Africa
Nile
Southern Africa
Buzi
Pangani
Save
Umbeluzi
Zambezi

Not all basin states party to an agreement
East Africa
Nile Cooperative Framework Agreement – not yet in force
Burundi, Ethiopia, Kenya, Rwanda, Tanzania, and Uganda have signed, will Egypt, Sudan, South Sudan?
Southern Africa
Zambezi Agreement – not yet in force
Botswana, Tanzania, Mozambique, Namibia and Angola have ratified, will Zambia, Malawi and Zimbabwe?

An agreement only partially covers matters addressed by the rule
East Africa
Nile Cooperative Framework Agreement (NCFA)
Scope: more specific Nile River Basin & System
Substantive: both support ERU (water security?)
Procedural: more explicit reference to EIAs; less detailed on notification
Dispute settlement: similar approach
West Africa
1987 Revised Convention Pertaining to the Creation of the Niger Basin Authority
Substantive: no reference to ERU or no significant harm
Procedural: lacks detailed procedures
Dispute settlement: no third party fact-finding

West Africa ctd
1972 Statute and 2002 Water Charter of the Senegal River
Scope: connected aquifers not included in definition of river
Substantive: no reference to ERU or no significant harm
Procedural: lacks detailed procedures
Dispute settlement: no 3rd party fact-finding
1978 Convention and the Gambia River
Scope: connected groundwater not included
Substantive: lacks detail
Procedural: lacks detail on notification process
1964 Convention and Statutes relating to the Development of the Chad Basin
Substantive: no detailed provisions
Procedural: lacks detail on notification process
2007 Convention on the Statute of the Volta River
Substantive: lacks detail
Procedural: lacks detail on notification
Protocol on the Management of the Kolib-Korubal Agreement
Lacks details norms on scope, substantive, procedural and dispute settlement mechanisms

Southern Africa
Revised SADC Protocol
Lacks clarity on the relationship between equitable reasonable utilisation and no harm
No specific of ‘vital human needs’ in SADC protocol

Aral Sea and SE Asia

SE Asia
Red/ Hong/ Yuan Jiang (China, Laos and Vietnam
Irrawaddy or Dulong (China, Myanmar and India)
Salween or Nu (China, Myanmar and Thailand)
Saigon (Cambodia and Vietnam)
Song Vam Co Dong (Cambodia and Vietnam)
Pakchan (Thailand and Myanmar)
BeiJianh or His (China and Vietnam)
Ma (Laos and Vietnam)
Ca or Song Koi (Laos and Vietnam)
Golok (Thailand and Malysia)
Aral Sea
SE Asia

An agreement only partially covers matters addressed by the UNWC
Aral Sea
Scope: Do not encompass ‘ecosystem’ concept
Substantive: no explicit provisions on ERU; UNWC more clarity as to relationship between ERU and no significant harm; strengthen obligation to protect aquatic ecosystems
Procedural: UNWC more detailed/ stringent procedures (notification, consultation, exchange of info)
Dispute settlement: UNWC provides more detail
Mekong Agreement
Substantive: UNWC provides more detail on ERU factors (Art.6).
Procedural: Notification no detailed binding commitments
Dispute settlement: submission to ICJ or arbitration not directly provided for in MA.

Europe

1992 UN ECE Helsinki Convention
Obligation to establish joint arrangements
2000 EC Water Framework Directive
Requirement to establish river basin districts
An agreement only partially covers matters addressed by the UNWC
Both 1992 UN ECE Helsinki Convention and 2000 EC Water Framework Directive provide stricter requirements than the UNWC

Perspectives on the role and relevance of the 97 UNWC

Perspectives on the UNWC
Need to address international watercourses at a global level
‘may seem small but is no less symbolic, for global water governance’ French government upon accession, 2010
Burkino Faso, Portugal, Germany, Spain, Greece, etc.
Awareness of the UNWC is lacking
‘Deeper awareness … about the convention’s content or its applicability to the region’s international watercourses is remarkably low’ West Africa Regional Assessment, 2008
Must examine implications of UNWC rules and develop shared understanding amongst key stakeholders (governmental and non-governmental) at the basin level
‘All respondents agreed that the key stakeholders need to know more about relevance of the 1997 UNWC. The United Nations Secretariat as depositor of the Convention and other promoter organizations and individuals need to strengthen their campaign to raise awareness among all relevant stakeholders and use their UN system and networks to encourage member countries to ratify or accede to this 1997 UNWC’ SE Regional Assessment, 2011.

Authors

Dr Alistair Rieu-Clarke (a.rieuclarke@dundee.ac.uk)
MsFlaviaLoures
(flavia.loures@wwfus.org)
www.dundee.ac.uk/water/projects/unwcglobalinitiative/
wwf.panda.org/what_we_do/how_we_work/policy/conventions/water_conventions/un_watercourses_convention
http://internationalwaterlaw.org/bibliography/ “Watercourses Convention”

THANK YOU!

The UN Watercourses Convention: Regional and Basin Perspectives

by IHP-HELP Centre for Water Law, Policy and Science under the auspices of UNESCO, University of Dundee

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Usage Rights

2 Embeds 417

Statistics