by
Ismail Serageldin
Vice President for Special Programs
The World Bank

Our Most Precious Resource

    Few issues have a greater impact on our lives and the life of the planet than the management of water.  We need water to maintain basic health and sanitation. We need adequate supplies of water to feed ourselves. Agriculture accounts for 70 percent of the world's water use. We also need water to develop and maintain vibrant economies.  Industries use about 20 percent of the world's freshwater, often as a vital part of the production process. Hydropower, a clean and renewable energy source, supplies nearly 20 percent of global electricity.  Most animal and plant species depend on aquatic ecosystems, which are also important for maintaining overall ecosystem balance, regional weather patterns, and even the global climate.
    As important as water is, we are learning that it is also an increasingly scarce commodity. Our planet - the blue planet - is covered with water. But it is almost all (97.5% of it) salt water. Of the remaining 2.5% which is fresh water, about two thirds is locked in glaciers and ice caps. The remaining third is in the solar powered hydrological cycle and amounts to some 110,300 cubic kms. Although enough of this falls each year on the land surface of the earth to cover the United States to a depth of  5 meters, or to fill all the world's lakes, rivers, and reservoirs 50 times over, about two thirds of it is "lost" to evapotranspiration and more than half of what remains flows unused to the sea. About three quarters of what is left is in the form of floods and only one quarter, or about 8,300 cubic kms is available to humans. Major efforts to control floods adds another 4,200 cubic kms, making for a total of 12,500 cubic kms. Of this amount, humans actually use about 35% and another 19% is used "in-stream" to maintain aquatic ecosystems, including fisheries, and provides variable levels of treatment of organic pollutants. All in all, the renewable supply of water available to humans is less than one percent of one percent of the total water available on the planet - 0.008% to be exact!
    The distribution of the small amount of available fresh water is hugely inequitable and water is critically scarce in many places. Generally, a country or region will experience periodic water stress when renewable supplies fall below 1,700 cubic meters per person per year and water scarcity when supplies fall below 1,000 cubic meters. The global average annual supply of renewable freshwater is about 7,400 cubic meters per person per year.  However, 166 million people in 18 countries suffer from water scarcity,  while another 270 million in 11 more countries are considered water stressed .
    Increasing water scarcity per capita is a global phenomenon but most severe in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA), home to five percent of the world's population and only 1 percent of the world's annual renewable freshwater. The 1,250 cubic meters per capita water availability in MENA is one of the lowest in the world. Regional data can also mask huge disparities between and within countries. Per capita availability of water in Egypt is a low 1,100 cubic meters per year (about a tenth of what is available to the average North American). Yet per capita availability in Jordan is a quarter of that in Egypt - only 260 cubic meters a year. And Israel's 5.5 million people consume three or four times as much water per person as do the 2 million Palestinians living in the West Bank and Gaza. Per capita water availability in China, the world's most populous country, was 2,333 cubic meters in 1995, a figure well above the commonly -used 1700 cubic meter benchmark for chronic water stress. But that number masks the severe water shortages gripping the North China Plain where demand for water has already outstripped supply, or in the capital city of Beijing where authorities are considering drawing water, at enormous expense, from a source that is more than 1,000 kilometers away. Of course, the quantity of water available for human and other uses is determined largely by its quality. Pollution of scarce water supplies is an especially serious threat to human consumption and reduces the amount of usable water.  Figure: Availability of Water by Continent (Shiklomanov, 1993 and da Cunha, 1994)
    Geography has also caused an uneven distribution of shared waters. More than half the land area of the world is an international watershed where river flows and lakes are shared. Yet many countries must use more water than is available internally and this has put them in a particularly vulnerable position.

Misallocation and Waste

    As precious as water is, it has been terribly mismanaged. Today 1.2 billion people do not have access to clean drinking water and more than twice that number do not have adequate sanitation. Some two million children die each year from water-related diseases.
    Going beyond the overarching human and equity considerations, economies also suffer because people don't have adequate water and sanitation. Debilitating waterborne diseases reduce human productivity, especially in rural areas. Lack of access to water in developing countries also takes a different kind of toll: women in poor countries spend a good portion of each day walking long distances to collect water for drinking, cooking, and cleaning .
We also continue to ignore the critical role of water in maintaining the quality of the environment and the link between a healthy environment and a healthy population and economy.
    Coastal wetlands have been drained for agriculture, aquaculture, industry and tourism. In many places groundwater is seriously at risk from overexploitation and contamination by urban and rural pollutants and the intrusion of saltwater. Many public investment projects have adversely affected the quality of water and contributed to the degradation of aquatic ecosystems. Misuse of land, particularly in agriculture, forestry, and mining has resulted not only in sedimentation of waterways and water pollution but also in poverty, as lands fail and families are forced to relocate, often to crowded cities.
Sewage and industrial waste pollute rivers on every continent.  India, the world's second most populous country, is experiencing water shortages in many places because of water pollution problems arising from discharges of untreated or poorly-treated sewage and industrial waste effluents particularly heavy metals and toxic chemicals. Since 1980, the quality of China's surface water and groundwater has deteriorated significantly under the pressure of rapid industrial development, population and urban growth, and increased use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides. As a result water pollution is now a serious problem for urban and rural drinking water. About 40 percent of the monitored river sections flowing past cities do not meet minimum water quality standards. World wide, the amount of water made unusable by pollution is estimated to be almost as great as the amount actually used  by humans.
    Finally, water disputes between riparian states are becoming a source of serious regional and international tension.  There are some 220 river basins that are shared by two or more countries and these are home to 40 percent of the world's population. There are long-running debates over the use of waters in rivers such as the Nile and the Tigris and Euphrates, and potential new issues arising over waters such as the Zambezi and Limpopo.

The Future is Here

    Today's water problems are only an indication of what lies ahead. Historically, the demand for water, like the demand for other natural resources, has risen, driven by population pressure, industrialization, and agricultural intensification. In this century alone, global water withdrawals have risen tenfold, with an increasingly larger share going to industrial and domestic uses.
Over 80 million people are added to the planet each year. For each of them, water will be an absolute necessity. Per capita water supplies are already a third lower than they were twenty five years ago due to the 1.8 billion people added since then. Over the next twenty five years, world population is projected to increase to at least 8 billion and demand for water will continue to grow. Since 1970, global water demand has grown by 2.5 percent per year. Projections of water demand to 2020 based on food supply and demand projections and industrialization and income trends, indicate that global withdrawals will increase about 40 percent. While this is less than the rate of withdrawal of the last twenty five years, the economic and environmental costs could be even more considerable.
    Populations are growing most rapidly in countries where water is most scarce. Twenty-nine countries, with a combined population of 430 million, can already be considered water-scarce or water stressed.   Most of these are in Africa and the Middle East which have high rates of population growth. In Africa, there are now eleven water-scarce countries, and at the turn of the century, five more countries are expected to be added to the list.  By 2000, 300 million Africans will live in water-scarce countries, about one-third of the projected population In the Middle East, nine out of fourteen countries are already facing water-scarce situations, and populations in many countries of the region are expected to double in thirty years. While Africa and the Middle East face a severe crisis, the growing populations of already large countries like India, China and Bangladesh also pose serious challenges. By 2050, under the United Nation's lowest population projection, 2 billion people in some 48 countries are expected to experience water stress or scarcity. Under the highest projection, some 6.8 billion in 60 countries would be water short.
Chart: Growing Demand for Water in Selected Countries 1955-2025
Population pressure will increase the demand for food. Between 1950 and the mid-1980s, irrigated area grew more than 2 percent a year, a key factor in allowing food production to keep pace with the growth in food demand . Half of the growth in food supply in the past thirty years has come from the expansion of irrigated agriculture, and an estimated half to two-thirds of the increment of future food production will have to come from irrigated land. However, it is becoming increasingly difficult to sustain the expansion of irrigation. The investments with the lowest cost and highest benefit have already been made (see below). There are also serious environmental concerns about irrigation projects and the dams that serve them.  Salinity and water-logging may now take as much old land out of irrigation as is added through new development  And given the large share of water going to agriculture, many countries are under pressure to reallocate water from irrigation to other uses. All these factors suggest that the increased demand for food will have to be met by  achieving higher yields using less water.
    Rapid urbanization and industrialization will substantially increase pressures on the supply and quality of water. Between 1950 and 1990, the number of cities with populations of more than 1 million nearly quadrupled from 78 to 290. They are expected to more than double and exceed 600 by 2025. In India alone, the increment of increase in the urban population over the next generation will be larger than twice the present day populations of France, the United Kingdom and Germany combined. In the next few years, fully half the world's population will live in cities.  By 2025, 90 percent of population growth will have taken place in urban areas, increasing the demand for water of suitable quality for domestic, municipal, and industrial use and for treatment of waste.
    Today in the industrial world, industry uses more than 40 percent of total water withdrawals; the comparable figure in developing countries is less than 10 percent.  This figure can be expected to grow significantly.  Greater industrial use will also lead to more water quality problems, especially if there are no clear and enforceable rules for controlling pollution.  Income growth will also put considerable pressure on household water use, as people who are well off use three to five times as much water than those who are not.
    The pressure on water resources does not come only from the demand side.  Even with measures to contain the growth of demand in agriculture, new water supplies will be needed for agriculture and urban use. However, the lowest-cost most reliable, and least environmentally damaging sources of water have already been developed in many countries.  As a result, the financial and environmental costs of tapping new water supplies are increasing dramatically, and they will rise even further when adequate facilities, especially in drainage, wastewater treatment and industrial pollution, are included as essential parts of investments. The average cost of most new projects is already two to three times that of existing projects and, with investments like these, can be expected to rise even further.
    As populations and demand for limited supplies of water grow, interstate (subnational) and international frictions over water can be expected to intensify. Indeed, just as many of the wars of the past century were fought over oil, those of the next century may be fought over water, unless we learn to manage our resources better.

What Are We Doing Wrong?

    Water has always been considered a strategic resource and public good, so it is not surprising that governments have assumed central responsibility for its management. Water's variability and the interdependent character of water activities make it difficult to use unregulated markets to deliver water efficiently and equitably. Nevertheless, while reliance on market forces alone is not possible or even desirable, mismanagement of water on the part of the government has led to serious misallocations and waste.

    There are four related problems. First, within countries, water management is fragmented among provinces, sectors and institutions, with little regard for conflicts or complementarities between  social, economic and environmental objectives. There are multiple agencies for different users - for example, irrigation, municipal water supply, power, and transportation - and inter-sectoral interactions within an interdependent system are usually ignored. Issues of water quantity and quality and concerns about health and the environment are treated separately, as is the management of surface and groundwater. Where individual provinces have jurisdiction over water in their territory, the same water source will be developed without considering the impact on other provinces. For example, in South India, Karnataca, an upstream riparian state, has developed massive irrigation schemes off the Cauvery river, depriving another state, Tamil Nadu, of its accustomed supplies to its delta (also its rice bowl). Similarly, domestic, industrial, and commercial supplies often are provided by local governments that are not coordinated with provincial or national water departments. The result is often excess and unproductive investments with different agencies developing the same water source for different uses.

    Fragmented management among countries, where one country will develop a water source without consulting or even considering the impact on other countries, also has economic consequences and potential for igniting international conflict. For example, Slovakia's irrigation and hydroelectric scheme on the Danube failed to consider the effects on downstream users like Hungary which later appealed to the International Court of Justice. And Syria and Iraq continue to have an ongoing dispute with Turkey over the development of the Ataturk dam.

    Another problem is heavy dependence on centralized command and control administration to develop, operate and maintain water systems. In developing countries, agencies charged with water management are severely overextended and have limited capacity to provide quality services. There is little stakeholder or private sector involvement. Users are rarely consulted or otherwise involved in planning and management. The result has been unreliable projects that produce services that do not meet consumers' needs and for which they are unwilling to pay.

    A principal constraint in current water management is that most countries refuse to treat water as an economic good. Low value users are allowed to consume large quantities of water, forcing high value users to incur steep costs in securing water from long distances. The result is waste, depletion, less than fully productive investments and sometimes ecological disaster. The once vast Aral Sea, for example, on which 50 million people depended for their water and livelihood, may shrink to one-sixth its 1960 size because so much water flowing to the sea has been diverted to grow subsidized cotton.

    The absence of financial discipline has an especially negative impact on the incentives and accountability of public authorities to provide quality services. Contrary to conventional wisdom, lack of pricing or underpricing of water has a disproportionate negative effect on the poor, yielding a vicious cycle of unreliable service, low willingness to pay and further decline in capacity to provide services. Poor people don't have access to water services, and the services they do receive are often far more expensive than what everyone else pays. In fact, in most cities of the developing world, those who do not have access to water pay 10 times the price for water than those that have taps in their homes. In Port-au-Prince, Haiti, the poorest households sometimes spend 20 percent of their income on water. In some Northern parts of Nigeria, the poor pay a similar portion of their income for water in the dry season while upper-income households pay only 2 to 3 percent.

    Current water resources management also neglects linking the quality of water to health, the environment, and economic development. Environmental degradation of water resources causes human suffering and burdens future generations with the costs of remedial actions. Economies also suffer directly from water pollution and misuse of water. In Poland, for example, three-quarters of the river water is too contaminated even for industrial use. And in Peru, the first ten weeks of a cholera epidemic caused $1 billion in losses from agricultural exports and tourism - more than 3 times the amount the nation invested in water supply and sanitation during the 1980s.

A New Framework

    The lessons of poor water management are reflected in a global consensus - endorsed at the United Nations Conference on the Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro and subsequent international gatherings - on the need for policies which recognize water as an integral part of the ecosystem, a natural resource and social and economic good.
 
    A Comprehensive, Cross-Sectoral Approach. The cornerstone of the new approach is that water policies and investments should ensure the sustainability of the water environment for multiple uses. Because policies, investments and regulations in one part of a river basin or in one sector affect activities throughout the basin, the strategy must incorporate a comprehensive framework for water resources management that recognizes the interactions between various elements of a river basin's ecosystem (a reasonably self-contained hydrological system) and allows for the incorporation of interstate, cross-sectoral and environmental considerations in the design of policies and investments.

    The structures for coordinating effective comprehensive water management will be difficult but necessary to establish. Most countries have a multiplicity of public agencies and commissions with overlapping responsibilities for managing water resources and decisions are fragmented. Institutional arrangements, such as river basin organizations or coordinating committees, need to be developed that encourage water-related agencies to coordinate and establish mutually agreed upon priorities for investment, regulation and allocations and ensure that policy, planning, and regulatory functions are separated from operational functions at each level of government. At the national level, these can be set up in ministries of planning or finance. Wherever they are established, it is important that they have adequate authority to review water activities and enforce consistency with national strategies. France, Germany and Australia are among the pioneering countries to have created basin authorities and institutional, legal and regulatory frameworks that successfully facilitate cross-sectoral and cross-governmental coordination, while delegating  responsibilities to municipalities. Many countries are now following suite, including India, China, Pakistan, Brazil, Mexico and Indonesia.

    Incentives. Better performance by providers of water services and more efficient use of water by beneficiaries can lead to improved allocation of water among different users and greater conservation. Performance and efficiency can be enhanced through proper incentives, the most important of which are priced-based. Ideally, water should be priced at its opportunity cost - its value in the best alternative use. Because agriculture takes the highest share of water and exacts the highest economic cost for the resource, efforts should be made to reallocate water out of the sector to meet its higher value in domestic and industrial uses. Adjustments to achieve compatible prices among urban and agricultural uses, reflecting the opportunity cost of water, should guide allocations in the context of a comprehensive framework that considers national objectives and the preferences of water users. Fees and fiscal incentives can also significantly influence water conservation and encourage firms and individual users to adopt water saving technologies, including systems for reuse.

    Proper pricing for water is not sufficient to ensure efficient allocation and improved services. The failure to collect and recover costs is also a constraint almost everywhere, especially in the developing world. What is needed is an accompanying set of incentives that encourages accountability, not just for cost recovery, but also for improved services. Experience demonstrates that decentralized service delivery can break the vicious cycle whereby service declines with collections and consumers become less willing to pay. Countries have achieved better quality service at lower cost by decentralizing water service delivery responsibilities to local governments and transferring some functions to the private sector, financially autonomous entities and community organizations such as water user associations.

    Prescribing and encouraging the participation of stakeholders - individuals and institutions that would be affected by decisions about water resources management - is beneficial in a number of ways. Stakeholder participation in the formulation and design of water projects has served to incorporate local knowledge and circumstances leading to better design. In many countries, users are involved in the on-going management of water systems, considerably reducing the financial and management burdens on government. Participation has encouraged greater cost sharing and better maintenance, promoted equity, built local capacity, and enhanced transparency, accountability and institutional performance. Participation has also generated a sense of ownership for projects which helps build the social and political cohesion that is necessary for long-term development planning.

    An important step towards decentralized water management are institutional reforms that are sensitive to traditional norms and practices but also responsive to the new structures. Legislation is needed to establish the legal basis for private firms and water user associations. The rights to water need to be clearly defined, with special emphasis on the interests of the poor. Establishing the context for action by non-governmental entities and individuals is especially important. Strong regulatory systems are prerequisites where social concerns, environmental externalities and a tendency toward natural monopoly in water services are prevalent.

    Private sector participation in water supply and sanitation usually leads to significant gains in productivity. The most common forms are lease contracts and concessions, usually secured through private bidding, to invest in, operate and maintain facilities. Such arrangements are common in Cote d'Ivoire, France, Guinea, Macao, Portugal and Spain. They were recently adopted in Argentina. And many countries in Eastern Europe and Latin America are considering similar approaches. In irrigation, private sector participation has had notable successes in the sale, operation, and maintenance of tubewells and small pumps, especially in Bangladesh, India, Pakistan and parts of West Africa.

    Environment and Health. Changes in water management that put greater reliance on the private sector, autonomous utilities and user participation promises to considerably improve a country's ability to protect the quality of its water and land and promote the health of its citizens. Cities, industries and small municipalities alike can be encouraged to reduce their discharges of wastewater by applying surcharges to water supply fees. In urban areas, municipal and industrial wasteloads can be reduced by improved infrastructure for wastewater disposal and treatment through the reduced costs of autonomously financed utilities and other market-like approaches such as marketable pollution discharge permits. With community participation and organization for user charges, smaller towns can also find it cost effective to treat effluents. Strengthened institutional capacities in urban areas would serve to increase monitoring capabilities and compliance. In smaller towns, community scrutiny would play a key role in enforcement. In the countryside, forcing land users to bear the true costs of poor water and land management through regulatory policies can reduce soil erosion, groundwater contamination, salinity, waterlogging and flood runoff. Proper pricing of water and electricity can control excessive withdrawals from aquifers. Eliminating crop subsidies for water-intensive crops can also conserve water.

The International Dimension

    The adoption of an integrated, more decentralized and participatory approach to water resources management at the national level may at first appear likely to increase the complexity of coordination efforts across national boundaries. In fact, the new approach promises to promote greater sharing of resources and an easing of tensions. Appropriate pricing policies should stimulate more efficient use, resulting in less stress on available resources and a reduction in tension between users across borders. Greater participation of stakeholders in water management should serve to increase transparency and accountability for management of water, thus improving trust and generating commitment for constructive inter-state action. Most importantly, an integrated approach to water management nationally also serves to break down the walls which artificially separate water stakeholders on opposite sides of national borders and nurture greater cooperation.

    International law, like the Helsinki Rules and the recent Convention on the Non-Navigational Use of International Water Courses, has an important role to play in sharing water internationally and in the peaceful settlement of disputes. There are also a growing number of bilateral and multilateral treaties as well as less formal arrangements for consultation and coordination, that serve to promote joint management of water. The 12 riparians who share the Danube River have established a task force, comprised of ministerial-level coordinators in each country and a technical focal point in Vienna, to develop and implement a number of agreements that have been ratified by Ministers of Water or Environment aimed at achieving sustainable and equitable water management in the Basin. Other countries are formulating interstate agreements. The countries of the Nile Basin have supported an institutional consultative arrangement to promote cooperation and action for efficient and equitable use of Nile waters, including assessment of supply and demand, development of national water management plans, and development of legal and institutional arrangements acceptable to all countries. Following on an earlier treaty, Laos, Kampuchea, Thailand and Vietnam have signed an agreement to cooperate in developing the resources of the lower Mekong basin. The states surrounding the Aral Sea have entered into a similar cooperative agreement. India and Pakistan, which share the Indus River, a source of India's food supply, have long had an agreement on sharing water resources. India and Pakistan have fought three wars over territories since the agreement was signed 36 years ago, but they continue to adhere to the treaty.

    Promoting Sustainable Management and Cooperation
Today,  new mechanisms are being established at  the international level to support local and regional efforts to share best practices in water resources management and improve cooperation and coordination among riparian states. The newly established World Water Council (www.worldwatercouncil.org) is a neutral and independent forum that promotes awareness about critical issues at all levels including among the highest decision-makers Its members include national and international organizations, private sector institutions and NGOs. The Council was catalytic in launching a World Commission for Water in the 21st Century, which is to examine water resources challenges in the 21st century.  It will draw on many different groups in its work, which is to be completed by March 22, 2000. A World Commission on Dams has also been established for a two year period. It will develop international accepted standards and guidelines for decision-making in the planning, design and construction of dams. These will have important implications for riparian states. Finally, the Global Water Partnership (www.gwpforum.org) has been established to coordinate national and international action in implementing the basic principles of integrated water management. The GWP is especially focused on mobilizing expertise and financial support for appropriate regional water development strategies which stress complementarity of benefits among nations sharing a water basin.
    These and other efforts are being strongly supported by the international community as vehicles for assisting countries to make a decisive break from the failed policies of the past and embrace a whole new way of looking at the world. What is called for is nothing less than a radical transformation in our values and our actions. This will not be easy. But failure is not an option. At stake is the very life of this watery planet.

back to the top

Ladies and Gentlemen,

     I wish first of all to thank the Center for the Global South and the American University for their kind invitation.  I feel very honored to be your luncheon speaker today.

     After careful consideration of the program for the Conference and its emphasis on dispute prevention, I felt that my intervention could focus on the Convention on the non-navigational uses of international watercourses.  This Convention was adopted on 21 May 1997 by the General Assembly of the United Nations.  I intend to focus, in particular, on its dispute prevention and  dispute settlement provisions.

     The importance of dispute prevention and dispute settlement in this field is perfectly clear when one recalls that more than 300 major river basins and groundwater aquifers cross national boundaries.   As such these watercourses are potential sources for conflict among States. The ever-increasing consumption of water resources, fueled by the growth of the world's population and the efforts to achieve economic growth and social progress, only contributes to increase the potential for conflict.

     The Convention constitutes a veritable  watershed in the legal regime for international watercourses. It is the result of a complex process of negotiations. The involvement of the United Nations in this field began in 1970 when the General Assembly first recommended that the International Law Commission (ILC) take up the study on the topic with a view to its progressive development and codification. Over the course of 24 years the ILC proceeded with its work on the topic while receiving numerous comments and suggestions from Member States.  In 1994, the ILC presented a final report to the General Assembly, along with the recommendation that a convention be adopted.

     In the same year, the General Assembly invited States to submit written comments and observations on the draft articles adopted by the ILC. The negotiations then continued in the Sixth Committee of the General Assembly, in the light of the comments and the observations made by States. Since the topic of international watercourses is complex and of a highly sensitive nature, the negotiations in the Sixth Committee were arduous. Despite the best intentions, consensus proved unattainable and a vote on the adoption of the convention was taken in the General Assembly.

     Several provisions of the Convention refer to it as a "framework convention". This notion has to do with its article 3.  According to this article,  in the absence of agreement to the contrary, nothing in the Convention shall affect the rights or obligations of a watercourse State arising from agreements in force for it on the date on which it became a party to the Convention.   Notwithstanding the foregoing, parties to such agreements may, where necessary, consider harmonizing them with the basic principles of the Convention. Also, watercourse States entering into future watercourse agreements, may apply and adjust the provisions of the Convention to the characteristics and uses of a particular international watercourse or part of it.

 Three basic principles are found in the convention:

     (1)equitable and reasonable utilization of international watercourses,
     (2)the "no harm" principle, and
     (3)the general obligation to cooperate, including the obligation for watercourse
         States to exchange on a regular basis data and information on the condition
         of the watercourse.

     The main issue in the negotiations proved to be the establishment of the hierarchical relationship between the principle of equitable and reasonable utilization, and the no harm principle. The relationship between the two concepts was the "bone of contention" of the negotiations. In general, upstream riparians preferred to give pre-eminence to the principle of equitable and reasonable utilization.  Down-stream riparians were of the view that the no-harm principle should be accorded priority. The first group was particularly interested in noting that the inhibition of new activities, which would result from the predominance of the no-harm rule, would impede or at the very least hinder economic development by granting the, in general, more developed downstream riparians a de facto veto right over new upstream uses. In the end, as we shall see, both principles were included in the Convention without a clear predominance of one over the other.

     The principle of equitable and reasonable utilization was embodied in article 5 of the Convention.  The provision includes wording that requires the utilization to be "optimal and sustainable", albeit taking into consideration the interests of the concerned watercourse States. The drafters of the convention felt that this objective could only be attained by introducing the concept of equitable participation not only in the use, but also in the protection and development of the watercourse. Furthermore, a non-exhaustive list of  factors and circumstances to be taken into account was included in article 6 to help ascertain whether utilization is indeed equitable and reasonable.

     For its part, the no harm principle was included in article 7 as an "obligation not to cause significant harm". This rule enjoins watercourse States in utilizing an international watercourse in their territories, to take all appropriate measures to prevent the causing of significant harm to other watercourse States. If significant harm is nevertheless caused, the State or States whose use causes such harm shall take all appropriate measures to eliminate or mitigate such harm and, where appropriate, to discuss the question of compensation.   This should be done in consultation with the affected State, and due regard should be given  to the provisions on equitable and reasonable utilization and participation.

     As I said before, both principles were included in the Convention without a clear predominance of one over the other. In this connection, article 10 is clear to the effect that, in the event of a conflict between uses of an international watercourse, it shall be resolved with reference both to the article dealing with equitable and reasonable utilization and participation and to the one dealing with the obligation not to cause significant harm.

     As you may realize, all these provisions concerning the three principles on which the Convention is based, have in themselves a great potential for dispute prevention.

     The potential for dispute prevention of the Convention is further developed in Part III.  This part deals with the notification to concerned States of planned measures on intended new or expanded uses of the watercourse.  It also outlines the procedure to be followed by a State which wishes to engage in activities that might have a significant adverse effect upon other watercourse States.

     Pursuant to these provisions, a State is obliged to exchange information and consult as well as, if necessary, negotiate if its planned measures on the use of a watercourse might affect other watercourse States.

     The notification of the planned measures must be done with the necessary elements which may enable the notified States to evaluate their possible effects. The States notified have a period of at least six months to reply.  During this period,  the notifying State shall, inter alia,  refrain from carrying out the planned measures, unless the notified States give their consent.

     If a notifying State receives no reply within the specified time period, it may proceed with the implementation of its planned measures.  However, this is always subject to the proviso of articles 5 and 7, in other words, respecting both the principle of equitable and reasonable utilization and the no harm principle.

     A notified State can reply with a documented explanation of why the planned measures would be inconsistent with one or the other of those two principles or with both.   If such a reply is given, the interested States shall enter into consultations and, if necessary, negotiations to find an equitable resolution of the situation (article 17). The paramount consideration in these consultations and negotiations, is that each State must in good faith pay reasonable regard to the rights and legitimate interests of the other State. During the consultations or negotiations, the notifying State shall refrain from implementing the planned measures, if so requested by the notified State.

     Another provision of Part III of the Convention foresees the possibility that notification might never take place. In this situation, a watercourse State which has reasonable grounds to believe that another watercourse State is planning measures which might have a significant adverse effect upon it, may request the corresponding notification along with all the relevant technical data and information. In case a satisfactory reply is not received,  the mechanism of consultations and negotiations which I previously referred to would be activated. Unless otherwise agreed, the measures in dispute would not be carried out further, once the process of consultations is initiated.

     Should a need for urgent implementation of planned measures arise, for example, in order to protect public health or safety, the Convention allows a State to proceed with said measures.   However, a formal declaration of the urgency of the measures and the relevant data must still be given to other watercourse States. In case any of the latter States should so request, the mechanism of consultation and negotiations which I have mentioned shall also be activated.

     Part IV of the Convention deals with the protection, preservation and management of the ecosystems of international watercourses. Many of the so called environmental provisions in this part call for individual and, where appropriate, joint action by watercourse States. At the request of any of them, consultations shall take place to address the problem of pollution and, if deemed necessary, the management of the international watercourse. The emphasis on cooperation, found throughout the Convention, was also extended to include non-watercourse States in those cases where the protection and preservation of the marine environment is at stake.

     Part V of the Convention also emphasizes the importance of cooperation in case of harmful conditions or emergency situations.

     Article 33, which is in Part VI, contemplates the possibility that a dispute arises, notwithstanding all the provisions in the Convention to prevent this.  The article provides for means of peaceful settlement in the absence of an applicable agreement between the parties to a dispute. Any party to the dispute may request negotiations and, if these do not bear fruit, the parties may jointly seek good offices, mediation or conciliation.  They may also make use of any joint watercourse institution that might have been established by them or submit the dispute to arbitration or to the International Court of Justice. These are more or less standard provisions for dispute settlement which spell out the principle of free choice of means.

     The innovative provision on this matter, at least in the case of the draft articles originating in the International Law Commission, is the one that calls for compulsory fact-finding at the request of any party to a dispute, if after six months from the time of the request for negotiation the Parties have not been able to settle their dispute by any of the means I just mentioned.  The Convention goes on to set the rules on establishment and operation of the Fact-Finding Commission.  Recommendations by the Commission for an equitable solution of the dispute must be considered in good faith by the Parties.

     The inclusion of compulsory fact-finding proved quite controversial, since some States were of the view that it violated the principle of free choice of means. There is however little doubt as to the need to have facts available in order to ascertain, in connection with any given dispute, the application of many of the key provisions of the Convention.  The existence of "significant adverse effects" which might result from a particular use given to a watercourse, or the determination of whether utilization of the watercourse is indeed "equitable and reasonable" could be mentioned as examples.

     A provision was also included which allows a party to declare in writing, at the time of expressing its consent to be bound by the Convention or at any time thereafter, that it recognizes as compulsory ipso facto and without special agreement in relation to any party accepting the same obligation either:

     a) Submission of the dispute to the International Court of Justice, or
     b) Arbitration by an arbitral tribunal established and operating  under a set of rules contained in an Appendix to the Convention.  This set of rules would apply unless the Parties otherwise agree.

     I now turn to the degree of support attained by the Convention.  Resolutions of the General Assembly of a legal nature tend, as a rule, to be adopted by consensus.  This was, unfortunately, not the case with the Convention. A full consensus proved unachievable, and the Convention was adopted by a vote of 103 in favor, 3 against (Burundi, China and Turkey) and 27 abstentions.

     It is also true that 35 ratifications are required for the entry into force of the Convention and that, as of the end of September this year, it had received 10 signatures and two ratifications.  However,  this slow process is not unusual for conventions of this nature.

     Furthermore, although at first glance one might assume that the 103 votes in favor of the Convention do not bode well for its universal acceptance, a closer examination of the matter gives a different picture. One must bear in mind that not all 185 Member States of the United Nations have the characteristic of being international watercourse States. The fact that  only three negative votes were cast constitutes a strong endorsement of the Convention by a quite sizable majority of States, as well as an indication that the rules found in the Convention are generally acceptable to the great majority of international watercourse States.  This, in itself, is already a quite valuable result, even in the absence of its entry into force.

     Some of the innovative provisions will also have an influence in the behavior which is expected from riparian States and could become of a customary nature at some point.

     In addition, the Convention constitutes the sole instrument on international watercourses seeking to address the matter on a global scale. The provisions of the Convention are the product of a long process of international negotiations where all interested States could participate. Its norms may thus be resorted to for the harmonization of other watercourse agreements with the basic principles of the Convention, irrespective of whether the Convention itself is actually in force.

     Furthermore, one can recall that the draft articles prepared by the International Law Commission had already constituted an important reference for the negotiations on watercourse agreements.  With its adoption by the General Assembly, the Convention is quite likely to influence the content of future watercourse agreements.

     In light of the time constraints posed by the nature of my intervention today, I have only been able to give you a glimpse of the significance that the adoption of the Convention on the non-navigational uses of international watercourses may have for the prevention and settlement of water disputes.  I, nevertheless, hope that my presentation could be of use.

     When Professor Clovis Maksoud invited me to join you today, he wanted me to give a "semi-philosophical" address on dispute settlement.  I told him that I preferred to be more pragmatic and focus on the important United Nations Convention.  However, in order not to disappoint him too much, allow me to end on a philosophical note.

     In a recent article dealing with issues of freshwater conflict, we were  reminded of a citation by the ancient Greek philosopher Heraclitus.  He said that "one never steps in the same river twice", an obvious hint to the ever-changing nature of the flows of water. I sincerely hope that the rules regulating international watercourses contained in the Convention, unlike the ever-changing flows of water, will prove to possess the stability and flexibility necessary for the prevention of disputes and, if they occur, their settlement.  In this way the Convention will, in no small measure, contribute to the promotion of peace in international relations.

 Thank you for your attention.

back to the top