This document analyzes several joint basin management institutions in Africa from an international water law perspective. It discusses factors that have helped or hindered the establishment and operation of these institutions, which are integral to the international legal duty of states to cooperate on shared water resources. Case studies of river basin organizations in Africa are provided as examples. Key factors for the effective functioning of joint institutions include strong legal agreements between basin states, clear institutional structures and mandates, regional integration and histories of cooperation, and financial and stakeholder sustainability over time.

1. Joint basin management institutions
as articulation of international water
law - a selection of African cases
Anton Earle
Stockholm International Water Institute

2. Impacts of Effective Cooperation
• Shift from a quantitative approach to assessing
cooperation; towards a qualitative approach
• A key question to ask is what factors have
helped or hindered the establishment and
operation of joint institutions?
• Study investigates the formation and
functioning of joint institutions such as
commissions, technical committees and
authorities from an international law
perspective

3. International Law
• Joint institutions (RBOs) are an integral part of the
implementation of the ‘duty to cooperate’, the bedrock rule
of international law
• International water law – global: UN Watercourse
Convention, UNECE and regional – SADC Protocol – all
encourage (but don’t require) formation of joint institutions
• The duty to cooperate is a result of hydrological
interdependence – but what about sovereignty?
• States can express their sovereignty through establishing
joint institutions
• Water-related conflicts usually not about states failing to
abide by law – rather to do with “ambiguous water rights”
i.e. a lack of law.

4. Joint Institutions
• Study of 216 water agreements (by
Leb, 2011) shows joint institutions
most common expression of
cooperation (the other four being
regular information and data
exchange; notification of planned
measures and emergencies;
consultation; and the
implementation of joint studies and
programs); and increasing
• Three elements for organisational
effectiveness considered:
– Legal and Institutional Foundations,
– Regional Context;
– Organisational Sustainability 0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
1900-
1966
1967-
1994
1995-
2010
Formation of Joint
Institutions (% of agmts)

5. Joint Institutions in Africa
• Important to consider for 3 main reasons:
– African countries share the greatest number of
transboundary (surface) watercourses with each other
– at least 64,
– African borders cut across cultural and language lines
– disconnect between basin population and the
capital city,
– Africa is one of the areas of the world experiencing
highest rates of GDP growth – double the global
average over the past decade. Accompanied by rapid
population growth and urbanisation – impacts on
water demand.

6. Cases
RBO Name Type Members
Senegal River Basin Development
Authority (French acronym OMVS)
Supranational organisation with legal
personality with executive regulatory
coordination powers
Guinea, Mali, Mauritania & Senegal
Niger Basin Authority Inter-governmental organisation with
legal personality acting in consultative
role
Benin, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Chad,
Côte d'Ivoire, Guinea, Mali, Niger and
Nigeria
Permanent Okavango River Basin
Water Commission (OKACOM)
Inter-governmental organisation acting
in consultative role with secretariat
having legal personality
Angola, Botswana & Namibia
Orange-Senqu River Commission
(ORASECOM)
Inter-governmental organisation acting
in consultative role with secretariat
having legal personality
Botswana, Lesotho, Namibia & South
Africa
International Commission of the
Congo-Oubangui-Sangha basins
(French acronym CICOS)
Inter-governmental organisation with
legal personality acting in consultative
role
Cameroon, Central African Republic,
Republic of Congo and Democratic
Republic of Congo
Nile Basin Initiative (NBI) Inter-governmental partnership of a
temporary nature
Burundi, DR Congo, Egypt, Ethiopia,
Kenya, Rwanda, South Sudan, The
Sudan, Tanzania, and Uganda

7. Legal & Institutional
Foundations
Strong legal agreement
including as many basin states
as possible
Clear institutional and
operational structure
Clarity on purpose, mandate,
scope and functions
Perception of benefits from
the multilateral process
Regional Context
Degree of regional integration
- existence of a common REC
History of previous
cooperation - level of trust
between countries
Shared culture/language
Absence of intractable
conflicts (water or other)
Organisational Sustainability
Financial management -
donor coordination,
diversified sources, fiduciary
responsibility
Ownership by member states
- and their financial
contributions
Clear organisational structure
(explicit)
Effective Stakeholder
Engagement
Commitment to data
gathering and sharing

8. Foundations
These factors are entirely dependent on the degree to which the
basin states are willing to limit their own sovereignty. Legal
agreements not static.
• Strong legal agreement: establishes the mandate and scope for
the RBO, e.g. OMVS pursue ambitions management and
development agenda, attracting investments,
• Clear operational structure: how the RBO does its work, e.g.
OKACOM less substantive formation agmnt – now supplemented
to form secretariat,
• Clarity on the purpose, scope and functions: what work the RBO
will do, e.g. NBA formation agmt raised expectations – had to
clarify in 2002 Shared Vision with support of Heads of State
• Perceived benefits: reduces risks by making clear what local
stakeholders gain, e.g. revised NBA agmt identified 3 dams to
build, while still and issue in NBI

9. Regional Context
Largely beyond the capacity of the RBO or states to change –
but can plan for mitigation or use of opportunities.
• Regional integration: existing regional orgs can aid
formation and operation of RBO, e.g. ORASECOM &
OKACOM benefit from framework of SADC Protocol, comp
with Nile,
• History of previous cooperation: in other fields & aids trust
& RBO formation, e.g. Lake Victoria,
• Shared language and culture: eases operations, e.g.
ORASECOM commonality vs OKACOM differences and Nile
groupings,
• Absence of intractable conflicts: on water and other issues.
Tensions may exist, but are overcome, e.g. NBI with CFA
(“water security” definition) and Orange River border issue.

10. Organisational Sustainability
A well-functioning RBO can serve to balance the interests of actors. Sustainability issues
often left until after the RBO is formed.
• Financial management: harmonisation between actors (ORASECOM), diversification of
income (operation of infrastructure – OMVS), donors focus on few basins globally
(Nile, Chad, Niger, Orange & Senegal take 50%),
• Ownership by member states: what is the alignment with their objectives? E.g.
Botswana national vision in OKACOM. Country contributions are strong indicator, e.g.
OMVS. Mainly cover core costs – operations by donors. Contribution formula varies.
• Clear institutional structure: outlining clear lines of responsibility with other
organisations. Relationships with sub-basin orgs e.g. ORASECOM with LHWC & PWA,
• Effective stakeholder engagement: can ease the work of the RBO e.g. OMVS engaging
stakeholders after constructions of Manantali dam improving public health.
• Data gathering & sharing: vital for planning and assessing progress, but takes time and
commitment, e.g. CICOS on Congo made hydro-monitoring a priority after mandate
changed in 2007.

11. Anton Earle
anton.earle@siwi.org
Stockholm International Water Institute, SIWI
www.siwi.org