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.

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

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)

11. not all basin states are parties to an existing agreement, and

14. Nile

15. Southern Africa

16. Buzi

17. Pangani

18. Save

19. Umbeluzi

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

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

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

55. Revised SADC Protocol

56. Lacks clarity on the relationship between equitable reasonable utilisation and no harm

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

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

79. Obligation to establish joint arrangements

80. 2000 EC Water Framework Directive

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!