the un watercourses convention: regional and basin perspectives
Upload: ihp-help-centre-for-water-law-policy-and-science-under-the-auspices-of-unesco-university-of-dundee
Post on 17-Jun-2015
1.431 views
DESCRIPTION
The UN Watercourses Convention: Regional and Basin Perspectives, by Dr. Alistair Rieu-Clarke, IHP-HELP Centre for Water Law, Policy and Science under the auspices of UNESCO, University of Dundee, Scotland.TRANSCRIPT
UN
ESCO
IHP-
HEL
P Ce
ntre
for W
ater
La
w, P
olic
y &
Sci
ence
The UN Watercourses Convention: Regional and Basin Perspectives
XIV World Water Congress25-29th September 2011Porto de Galinhas, Brazil
Dr Alistair Rieu-Clarke22nd August 2011
Europe
South America
Central America
Southern Africa
Aral Sea
South-east Asia
West Africa
East AfricaCongo
Regional and Basin Assessments
West Africa
East Africa
Congo
Southern Africa
Aral Sea
SE Asia
Aims and objectives
Ascertain transboundary challenges and opportunities at the regional/ basin level
Map existing legal architecture at the regional/ basin level (and national)
Compare 1997 UNWC provisions with existing legal architecture
Explore perspectives on 1997 UNWC amongst key stakeholders within a basin/ region
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
“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)
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)
IHP-HELP Centre for Water Law, Policy and Science | under the auspices of UNESCO Slide | 10
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• Dispute settlement: no 3rd party fact-finding
• 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• Dispute settlement: no 3rd party fact-finding
• 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
Aral Sea
SE Asia
No basin-wide agreement• 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)• Bei Jianh or His (China and Vietnam)• Ma (Laos and Vietnam) • Ca or Song Koi (Laos and Vietnam)• Golok (Thailand and Malysia)
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
No basin-wide agreement• 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
IHP-HELP Centre for Water Law, Policy and Science | under the auspices of UNESCO Slide | 23
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.
Name Affiliation Region/ basin
Mr. Sokhem Pech M-power SE Asia
Mr. Musa Abseno IHP-HELP Centre for Water Law, Policy & Science, University of Dundee (CWLPS)
East Africa
Ms. Dinara Ziganshina CWLPS Aral Sea
Dr. Alistair Rieu-Clarke CWLPS Europe
Prof. Patricia Wouters CWLPS Europe
Ms. Flavia Loures WWF Europe
Mr. Joshua Newton Consultant South America
Mr. Anton Earle SIWI Southern Africa
Mr. Daniel Malzbender African Centre for Water Research Southern Africa
Dr. Amidou Garanne Consultant West Africa
Alexander Lopez School of International Relations, National University of Costa Rica
Central America
Charles Kabobo Consultant Congo
Authors
IHP-HELP Centre for Water Law, Policy and Science | under the auspices of UNESCO Slide | 25
Dr Alistair Rieu-Clarke ([email protected])
Ms Flavia Loures([email protected])
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!