The UN Watercourses Convention: Regional and Basin Perspectives
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Like this? Share it with your network

Share

The UN Watercourses Convention: Regional and Basin Perspectives

on

  • 2,713 reproducciones

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, ...

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.

Estadísticas

reproducciones

reproducciones totales
2,713
reproducciones en SlideShare
2,295
reproducciones incrustadas
418

Actions

Me gusta
0
Descargas
6
Comentarios
0

2 insertados 418

http://unjobs.org 416
http://users.unjobs.org 2

Accesibilidad

Categorias

Detalles de carga

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Derechos de uso

© Todos los derechos reservados

Report content

Marcada como inapropiada Marcar como inapropiada
Marcar como inapropiada

Seleccione la razón para marcar esta presentación como inapropiada.

Cancelar
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    ¿Está seguro?
    Tu mensaje aparecerá aquí
    Processing...
Publicar comentario
Edite su comentario

The UN Watercourses Convention: Regional and Basin Perspectives Presentation Transcript

  • 1. 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
  • 2. Regional and Basin Assessments
    Europe
    Central America
    Aral Sea
    West Africa
    East Africa
    Congo
    South-east Asia
    Southern Africa
    South America
  • 3. West Africa
    East Africa
    Congo
    Southern Africa
  • 4. Aral Sea
    SE Asia
  • 5.
  • 6.
  • 7. Aims and objectives
  • 8. 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
  • 9. 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)
  • 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
    • 11. not all basin states are parties to an existing agreement, and
    • 12. an agreement only partially covers matters addressed by the rules
  • East, West and Southern Africa
  • 13. No basin-wide agreement
    • East Africa
    • 14. Nile
    • 15. Southern Africa
    • 16. Buzi
    • 17. Pangani
    • 18. Save
    • 19. Umbeluzi
    • 20. Zambezi
  • Not all basin states party to an agreement
    • East Africa
    • 21. Nile Cooperative Framework Agreement – not yet in force
    • 22. Burundi, Ethiopia, Kenya, Rwanda, Tanzania, and Uganda have signed, will Egypt, Sudan, South Sudan?
    • 23. Southern Africa
    • 24. Zambezi Agreement – not yet in force
    • 25. 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
    • 26. Nile Cooperative Framework Agreement (NCFA)
    • 27. Scope: more specific Nile River Basin & System
    • 28. Substantive: both support ERU (water security?)
    • 29. Procedural: more explicit reference to EIAs; less detailed on notification
    • 30. Dispute settlement: similar approach
    • 31. West Africa
    • 32. 1987 Revised Convention Pertaining to the Creation of the Niger Basin Authority
    • 33. Substantive: no reference to ERU or no significant harm
    • 34. Procedural: lacks detailed procedures
    • 35. Dispute settlement: no third party fact-finding
    • West Africa ctd
    • 36. 1972 Statute and 2002 Water Charter of the Senegal River
    • 37. Scope: connected aquifers not included in definition of river
    • 38. Substantive: no reference to ERU or no significant harm
    • 39. Procedural: lacks detailed procedures
    • 40. Dispute settlement: no 3rd party fact-finding
    • 41. 1978 Convention and the Gambia River
    • 42. Scope: connected groundwater not included
    • 43. Substantive: lacks detail
    • 44. Procedural: lacks detail on notification process
    • 45. Dispute settlement: no 3rd party fact-finding
    • 46. 1964 Convention and Statutes relating to the Development of the Chad Basin
    • 47. Substantive: no detailed provisions
    • 48. Procedural: lacks detail on notification process
    • 49. 2007 Convention on the Statute of the Volta River
    • 50. Substantive: lacks detail
    • 51. Procedural: lacks detail on notification
    • 52. Dispute settlement: no 3rd party fact-finding
    • 53. Protocol on the Management of the Kolib-Korubal Agreement
    • 54. Lacks details norms on scope, substantive, procedural and dispute settlement mechanisms
    • Southern Africa
    • 55. Revised SADC Protocol
    • 56. Lacks clarity on the relationship between equitable reasonable utilisation and no harm
    • 57. No specific of ‘vital human needs’ in SADC protocol
  • Aral Sea and SE Asia
  • 58. No basin-wide agreement
    • SE Asia
    • 59. Red/ Hong/ Yuan Jiang (China, Laos and Vietnam
    • 60. Irrawaddy or Dulong (China, Myanmar and India)
    • 61. Salween or Nu (China, Myanmar and Thailand)
    • 62. Saigon (Cambodia and Vietnam)
    • 63. Song Vam Co Dong (Cambodia and Vietnam)
    • 64. Pakchan (Thailand and Myanmar)
    • 65. BeiJianh or His (China and Vietnam)
    • 66. Ma (Laos and Vietnam)
    • 67. Ca or Song Koi (Laos and Vietnam)
    • 68. Golok (Thailand and Malysia)
    Aral Sea
    SE Asia
  • 69. An agreement only partially covers matters addressed by the UNWC
    • Aral Sea
    • 70. Scope: Do not encompass ‘ecosystem’ concept
    • 71. Substantive: no explicit provisions on ERU; UNWC more clarity as to relationship between ERU and no significant harm; strengthen obligation to protect aquatic ecosystems
    • 72. Procedural: UNWC more detailed/ stringent procedures (notification, consultation, exchange of info)
    • 73. Dispute settlement: UNWC provides more detail
    • 74. Mekong Agreement
    • 75. Substantive: UNWC provides more detail on ERU factors (Art.6).
    • 76. Procedural: Notification no detailed binding commitments
    • 77. Dispute settlement: submission to ICJ or arbitration not directly provided for in MA.
  • Europe
  • 78. No basin-wide agreement
    • 1992 UN ECE Helsinki Convention
    • 79. Obligation to establish joint arrangements
    • 80. 2000 EC Water Framework Directive
    • 81. 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
  • 82. 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.
  • 83. Authors
  • 84. 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”
  • 85. THANK YOU!