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 (a.rieuclarke@dundee.ac.uk)

Ms Flavia Loures(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!