 |
|||||||
| About UNEP | UNEP offices | News centre | Publications | Calendar | Awards | Milestones | UNEP Store |
|
|||||||
|
 |
|
|
|
||
| UNEP>DTIE>IETC | |
|
|
<Forum on the Caspian, Aral and Dead
Seas-Perspective Role of International Organizations for Integrated
Management of International Water Bodies Mikiyasu Nakayama International Water Bodies Require Integrated Management International watercourses are a classic example in which national interests among countries are likely to diverge because of externalities. Given the international context, however, inefficiency caused by interdependent water uses cannot be resolved through a single government's policies. Upstream countries see little benefit from increasing or maintaining the flow and quality of water for those downstream. Without enforceable international water-use rights established by treaty, countries make decisions without considering the consequences for other countries using the same resource. However, securing such international agreements is often difficult. The end result may be environmental, social, and economic losses in the downstream countries that are greater than the benefits to the upstream country. More than 200 river basins are shared by two or more countries. These basins account for about 60 percent of the earth's land area. Fragmented planning and development of the associated transboundary river, lake, and coastal basins is the rule rather than exception. Although more than 300 treaties have been signed by countries to deal with specific concerns about international water resources and more than 2,000 treaties have provisions related to water, coordinated management of international river basins is still rare, resulting in economic losses, environmental degradation, and international conflict (World Bank, 1993). International conferences such as the 1992 Dublin Conference on Water and the Environment and the 1992 UNCED in Rio de Janeiro have stressed the need for comprehensive management of water resources using the river basin as the focus of analysis. Cooperation and goodwill among states sharing a drainage basin are essential for efficient development and utilization of international rivers and groundwater aquifers. In order to fulfill their own economic goals, it is important that such states formally collaborate to exchange data, share waters, preserve the environment, and generate development programs that are of joint interest and benefit (World Bank, 1994a). Need of International Efforts and Role for International Organizations Basin states and organizations in developing regions may not have the capacity to develop and manage on their own shared water resources. They may lack information, expertise or the financial capacity to follow through with planning, implementation and operation. The international community provides much technical and financial support to carry out basin-wide indicative planning necessary to show the benefits available from cooperation. Through cooperation, states may obtain aid that might not otherwise be available to them. The effect is positive from the point of view of promoting and sustaining international cooperation (LeMarquand, 1981). Overcoming institutional barriers to the management of international watercourses is not easy. Managing institutions, such as commissions or authorities, often involve only federal or central authorities, while state or provincial and local jurisdictions may have more responsibility for implementation. These barriers can be overcome through the involvement of all relevant jurisdictions, interagency cooperation, public participation, and fact-finding based on data sharing. Commissions or other managing entities should be positioned outside of the direct control of individual government, and should remain impartial to preserve their independence as facilitators and independent evaluation. This concept is similar to that of separating operational from regulatory responsibility. Specific treaties or agreements are needed to codify the responsibilities of participating nations and the facilitating agency. A secretariat that reports to the entity or commission - not the government - is essential. The lessons of experience with agreements and joint actions between riparians, such as the World Bank's difficult but successful nine-year effort to facilitate the 1960 Indus Water Treaty between India and Pakistan, suggest that external assistance and encouragement are valuable and sometimes essential ingredients in establishing international water agreements. Where the basic institutional framework exists, international agencies should provide support and encouragement. International agencies can also assist riparians in developing and managing water resources and in facilitating the implementation of treaties. The three main objectives of international efforts should be (a) to help riparian countries address problems with international water resources, (b) to unblock priority development activities that are held hostage by dispute over shared watercourses, and (c) to reduce inefficiencies in the use and development of scarce water resources caused by the lack of cooperative planning and development. Since no single international organization commands all the skills, experience, or resources necessary to achieve the needed cooperation, collaborative efforts among potential donors, international organizations, and NGO's would promote the sound management of international waters (World Bank, 1993). Successful Case I - Zambezi Action Plan The Zambezi river basin is located between 8 deg. S and 30 deg. S latitude, and between 6.5 deg. E and 36 deg. E longitude. The Zambezi river, together with its tributaries, forms the fourth largest river basin in Africa and drains almost the entire south-central region of the continent. The Zambezi flows eastward for about 3,000 km from its source on the Central African Plateau to the Indian Ocean. The Zambezi river system encompasses the territories of eight countries and for some of them it is the principal water resource. The countries are: Angola, Botswana, Malawi, Mozambique, Namibia, Tanzania, Zambia and Zimbabwe. Together with its tributaries, the Zambezi drains an area of about 13,000,000 sq. km. The basin area constitutes 23.4% of the total area of the riparian countries (David, 1988). The African Ministerial Conference on the Environment, held at Cairo on 16 to 18 December 1985, designated "Study and implementation of an integrated multi-purpose development plan for the basin of the Zambezi river (irrigation, navigation and energy) in order to use its waters rationally, combat desertification, promote food production and open up land-locked areas: Angola, Botswana, Malawi, Mozambique, Namibia, United Republic of Tanzania, Zambia and Zimbabwe" as one of the priority subregional activities (UNEP, 1985). Among the riparian countries of the Zambezi river, in the field of water resources management, cooperation among the basin countries was of a sectoral type, mainly related to economic development through SADCC (Southern African Development Coordination Conference), hydropower production based on existing intergovernmental agreements (especially between Zambia and Zimbabwe), and transport and communication. It was thus highly desirable to deal with water and environmental management problems in a comprehensive and coordinated manner to avoid future conflicts between socio-economic development and ecological interests. Accordingly, UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme) was requested by the heads of the state of Botswana, Zambia and Zimbabwe to assist in the development of international cooperation in this field. The Zambezi Action Plan for the Environmentally Sound Management of the Common Zambezi River System (ZACPLAN) was thus developed as the first pioneering enterprise of UNEP in the field of managing international water bodies. A Working Group of Experts on the Zambezi River System was established in 1985. Two documents were prepared by the Working Group through three meetings between 1985 and 1987. The "Diagnostic Study" on the present state of ecology and the environmental management of the common Zambezi river system, which was based on country reports provided by the experts, defined specific environmental problems and their impacts. It also outlined management goals, policies and activities. The draft ZACPLAN was also developed by the Working Group. It consisted of 19 projects (ZACPROs), with 8 projects grouped as "category 1" and 11 project ideas as "category 2". The objective of the ZACPLAN was to overcome problems identified in the Diagnostic Study and to promote development and implementation of environmentally sound water resources management for the entire river system through its implementation. To approve the draft, a Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Environmental Management of the Common Zambezi River System was convened by UNEP and hosted by the Zimbabwean government at Harare in May 1987. The plenipotentiaries of the Zambezi countries (ministries responsible mostly for water and/or environmental matters) signed the International Agreement on the Action Plan for the Environmentally Sound Management of the Common Zambezi River System. They also decided that the ZACPLAN should be implemented as an action program of SADCC. The implementation of the ZACPLAN is now managed by SADC (Southern African Development Community), which succeeded SADCC in 1992. All SADC's work relating to ZACPLAN has been primarily assigned to the SADC Environment and Land Management Unit in Maseru, Lesotho. However, the unit has reassigned one of the projects (creation of a sound hydrologic data base including telemetric data collection) to the ZACPLAN Coordinating Unit together with the Zambia Electricity Supply Company (ZESCO) in Lusaka, Zambia. Though the ZACPLAN has been implemented more slowly than envisaged (World Bank, 1994c), the "Protocol on Shared Watercourse Systems in SADC Region" was developed under one of the ZACPRO projects (namely ZACPRO2: development of regional legislation for the management of the Zambezi with a minimum of required national legislation of riparian states for enforcement). The Protocol is expected to be adopted soon (SADC, 1994). Also, under another ZACPRO project (ZACPRO6: development of an integrated water resources management plan for the Zambezi River Basin), the creation of a relevant water quality and quantity database and a review of all sectors that benefit from or affect water resources management are underway. Also, all major completed and planned water resources development projects in the basin have been identified and documented. The ZACPLAN, which was elaborated by basin countries with assistance given by an international organization, is still one of the two main water related activities being promoted by SADC, and it has led to outcomes which may not have been achieved without collaboration of basin countries through ZACPLAN. Successful Case II - Aral Sea Program The Aral Sea basin extends over 690,000 sq. km., including the republics of Kazakhstan, Kirghizstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan. A small portion of its headwater is located in Afghanistan, Iran and China. The basin is formed by two of the largest rivers of Central Asia - Amu Darya and Syrdarya - both fed by the snow melt and glaciers from the mountains. The Amu Darya sources are mostly located in Tajikistan, with few watercourses originating in northeastern Afghanistan. The Syrdarya originates mainly in Kirghizstan. It runs across a small portion of Tajikistan and Uzbekistan and through the Kazakh provinces of Chimkent and Kzyl-Orda (World Bank, 1994d). In 1960, the Aral Sea was the fourth largest inland lake in the world. Since then, however, it has shrunk significantly because of nearly total cutoff of river inflow from the Amu Darya and Syrdarya as a result of heavy withdrawal for irrigation. By 1989 the sea level had fallen by 14.3 meters and the surface area had shrunk from 68,000 sq. km. to 37,000 sq. km. The salinity of the sea had increased to 2.8 times the 1960 level. The main issues relating to the Aral Sea basin area are the following: the reduction of the sea, the destruction of its aquatic ecosystem, the lowering of soil quality in the Aral Sea Basin, pollution of surface and groundwater of the delta draining into the Aral Sea, a depressed economy and adverse health impacts on the population due to lack of potable water and inadequate sanitation. The causes as well as the regional effects of the Aral Sea shrinkage can be enumerated. Inefficient irrigation practices coupled with heavy chemical applications, cultivation of cotton and rice, and inappropriate development policies are among the important causes. For the last three decades, Soviet policy in the region focussed on massive irrigation projects along the Amu Darya and Syrdarya with the primary goal of creating a Central Asian cotton belt. Urban and industrial water use, though still a small fraction of total water use, has also risen. The irrigation techniques have led to high rates of leakage and evaporation as well as waterlogging and salinity build-up. As a result, the two river flows that feed the Aral Sea are nearly completely expelled before they ever reach the Sea. Recognizing the crucial need to save the disappearing Aral Sea and the need to provide an overall perspective of the Aral Region, per request of the former Soviet Union, UNEP commenced working on the environmental issues of the Aral Sea basin in 1989. The "Diagnostic Study for the Development of an Action Plan for the Aral Sea" was issued by UNEP in 1992. The report presented a comprehensive analysis of the causes of the Aral Sea crisis, but it did not recommend a specific action plan. It provided, however, a basis for elaboration and analysis of the strategies for further activities for mitigating the ecological disaster. After completion of the Diagnostic Study, UNEP ceased to actively take the leading role among international organizations for the Aral Sea issue. The World Bank then in practice took over the task as the coordinator among basin countries, donor countries and international organizations. In response to requests for assistance from the five Aral Sea states, a World Bank mission visited the region in September 1992. After a review of existing reports, field visits, and discussions with the ministries and local officials of the region, the Mission presented an Aide Memoire recommending four major thrusts to address the crisis: (1) stabilizing the environment of the Sea; (2) rehabilitating the disaster zone around the Sea; (3) undertaking comprehensive management of the international waters; and (4) building the regional institutions to plan and implement the above programs (World Bank, 1994e). The World Bank, in collaboration with UNEP and UNDP, organized an international seminar at Washington in April 1993 to mobilize the support of donor countries and international agencies for the proposed program for addressing the crisis. Ministerial level representatives of the five Aral Sea basin states presented their respective Heads of States' message requesting international support for the program and confirmed their string commitment to cooperate to address the Aral Sea crisis. The donors supported the proposal to establish a "Fund" with substantial grant financing to start work on the first phase of the program. The "Aral Sea Program - Phase 1" was subsequently formulated by the Executive Committee of the newly established Interstate Council for Addressing the Aral Sea Crisis, with assistance given by the World Bank, UNEP and UNDP. The Program has four main objectives; (1) to stabilize the environment of the Aral Sea Basin; (2) to rehabilitate the disaster zone around the Sea; (3) to improve the management of the international waters of the Aral Sea basin; and (4) to build the capacity of the regional institutions to plan and implement the above programs. The Phase 1 Program includes 19 projects designated to achieve the objectives stated above. In broad terms, 3 projects are intended to initiate the first steps for improving the conditions in the disaster zone, 7 projects for improving the conditions in the disaster zone, and 9 projects for managing the water resources of the basin. In addition to 19 projects, the Program includes a separate project for building the capacity of the regional institutions to plan and implement the Program. The Aral Sea Program is still in its very early stage of implementation. It is thus too early to predict if it would ultimately have a success or not. However, the fact that (1) basin countries of the Aral Sea agreed upon the Program, and that (2) they also decided to establish a river basin organization, suggests that the assistance given by international organizations has proved quite effective in accomplishing these achievements, which may not otherwise have been attained in such a short time frame. The World Bank's Policy on International Water Issues The World Bank recognizes that cooperation and goodwill of riparian countries is essential for efficient development and utilization of international waterways. It attaches the utmost importance to riparians entering into appropriate cooperative arrangements for such purposes, and stands ready to assist them in achieving these objectives. In cases where differences remain unsolved, the World Bank, prior to financing the project proposed by a riparian country, will require that country to offer to negotiate in good faith with other riparians to reach appropriate agreements or arrangements (World Bank, 1994b). Specifically, the World Bank's policy requires the country proposing the project to notify other riparians of the proposed project. If the country does not wish to give the notifications, the World Bank will normally give such notification to the other riparians. If the country does not want the World Bank to do so, the World Bank will discontinue further processing of the project (World Bank, 1990). In cases where the other riparians, after receiving the notification from the country or the World Bank, raise objections to the proposed project, the World Bank will assess whether the objectives are valid and reasonable. It will also obtain, if necessary, an additional opinion from independent experts. If the World Bank is satisfied, on the basis of such assessments, that the proposed project will not cause appreciable harm to the interests of the other riparians, it will inform those riparians of its decision and consider further processing of the proposed project. In all cases, the World Bank recognizes that projects on international waterways require special handling because international water issues are sensitive and they may affect relations not only between the World Bank and its borrowers but also between the riparian countries, whether members of the Wold Bank or not. It has been suggested that the World Bank should take a more proactive role in international water affairs to promote riparian cooperative arrangements for systematic planning and development of their water resources (World Bank, 1994b). A proactive role could be funded on two broad policies of the World Bank: (1) The World Bank should make known to riparians that it will play a proactive role in international water affairs to assist ripariens in establishing river basin cooperative arrangements and executing treaties for the planning and development of water resources for their mutual benefits. (2) The World Bank should prepare the ground and create the conditions that enhance the confidence of riparians in the ability of the World Bank, neutrality, and its comparative advantage in providing assistance and that in the pursuit of their joint developmental objectives, they would be better off with the assistance of the World Bank than without it. Experience worldwide has consistently shown that the use of third parties in a mediation role can facilitate dispute resolution, guide complex bargaining towards acceptable outcomes, and help maintain balance and commitment by riparian countries to the negotiating process (World Bank, 1994f). The World Bank has many advantages as such a third party since it can (1) act as independent broker; (2) provide leadership inherent in its international role in donor coordination; (3) catalyze the mobilization of both official and private funding; (4) provide an important channel for gaining access to expertise; (5) be creative in promoting appropriate process solution; and (6) help ensure systematic evaluation of alternative solutions through the appropriate use of analytical techniques. Program for the Caspian Sea Basin The Caspian Sea is the largest closed basin lake of the World. The Sea is about 1,200 km long and about 310 km in width. The coastline is approximately 7,000 km long. The area of the Sea is 386,400 sq. km., measured at -27.5 m sea level, and its drainage basin is 3.1 million sq. km. Five nations, Azerbaijan, Islamic Republic of Iran, Kazakhstan, Russia and Turkmenistan share the catchment. The Caspian possesses a variety of marine and coastal ecosystems. Several important economic activities in the Caspian have a bearing on the Caspian environment. These include stocks of sturgeon, on which many people depend for a livelihood from fisheries, and which are an important source of export revenue. Oil exploration and exploitation around the Caspian is also growing in importance. The level of the Caspian Sea over the past 100 years has exhibited a clearly expressed tendency towards lowering. In 1977, the level reached a record low mark of -29.0 m (Rodionov, 1990). As the sea declined, human activities such as farming shifted onto the newly exposed seabed. The Soviet government responded with engineering solution, developing plans to bring water to the sea from wetter parts of the Soviet Union (Glantz, 1995). After this record low, the water level began to rise. This rise is unusual in terms of the rate of its acceleration as well as, most importantly, in its uninterrupted duration (Rodinov, 1990). Environmental problems are mounting: coastal inundation because of sea level rise, water pollution by raw sewage and oil production, pollution and fishing pressure, and impacts on fish populations, especially sturgeon, the main source of high-value cavier (Glantz, 1995). The fall in lake level between 1927 and 1977 resulted in lakeward encroachment of all manner of economic activity, not the least of which has been the petroleum industry including exploration, oil field development and pipeline construction. Shoreline changes necessitated movement of facilities such as moorages, docks, embankments, etc. lakeward as lake area decreased. The unexpected rise in the lake level since 1977 has caused the inundation of everything built during the course of 50 years of lake level decline (Shafer, 1994). The Caspian littoral states and their peoples face significant environmental and resource management issues and problems, many of which are inter-related. These issues and problems have not yet been analyzed in a comprehensive and systematic manner. During the last several years, the Caspian Sea coastal states, namely Azerbaijanian Republic, Islamic Republic of Iran, Kazakhstan, Russian Federation and Turkmenistan, have undertaken a number of initiatives with respect to the environmental protection of the Caspian Sea. In 1991, the littoral states organized the first multilateral conference on environmental problems of the Caspian Sea, which called for international coordination of the activities aimed at the protection of the marine environment and the establishment of an international monitoring system. The coastal countries held, at Almaty in May 1994, a regional meeting on the implication of climate change in the Caspian Sea region. In the "Declaration on Environmental Cooperation in the Caspian Sea", adopted by five littoral states, the provisions of the draft Convention for the Conservation and Utilization of Bioresources of the Caspian Sea were reaffirmed (Meeting of the Representatives of the Caspian Sea, 1994). Concern was expressed about the environmental degradation of the Caspian Sea basin and particularly in its coastal zone, and about marine biological resources. The states declared that: - Sea-level rise, irrational utilization of natural resources, and other adverse factors represent significant risks to the region of the Caspian Sea; - Urgent needs exist to define the status of the Caspian Sea and its bioresources, including specially protected reserve territories and water bodies; - The fastest implementation of coordinated measures on stabilization of the ecological situation will prevent degradation of the ecosystem of the Caspian Sea and its coastal territories; - Coordination of international cooperation in research, management, economic incentives, and harmonization of legislation with the goal of conserving the biodiversity of the Caspian Sea and its coastal zone is the highest priority task of all caspian states; - The Caspian Sea states affirm their desire to cooperate constructively in environmental management and actions aimed at sustainable and ongoing utilization of the biological resources of the Caspian Sea; - The Caspian Sea states will cooperate fully in the preparation and implementation of a program of joint activities on protection of the environment which should establish the basis for rational utilization of natural resources and identify priority sphere of activities; - The representatives of the Caspian Sea states call on the international community to support their joint efforts and to provide assistance in the development of the environmental program. The meeting called for coordination among the littoral states and international organizations, and agreed to request the UNEP to prepare an action plan on the protection and management of the environment of the Caspian Sea. UNDP, UNEP and the World Bank have agreed to respond to recent policy commitments made by the governments of the littoral states concerning the Caspian environment by embarking on various steps to assist the governments in the preparation and implementation of a comprehensive and integrated environmental and resource management plan for the Caspian, known as the Caspian Initiative. The ultimate aim of the Caspian Initiative is to facilitate integrated management and sustainable development of oceans and seas, including enclosed and semi-enclosed seas, coastal and marine areas (including exclusive economic zones), and the protection, rational use and development of their natural resources. The discussion between basin countries of the Caspian Sea and international organizations is in its very early stage. It is thus still not known what sort of activities are to be included in a program, which could be developed for the Caspian Sea. However, if previous successful cases in the Zambezi River and Aral Sea basins can be precursors, similar steps ought to be taken toward development of a program: The working group of experts, composed of representatives from basin countries, donor countries, international organizations and NGO's should be established. A diagnostic study will then be elaborated by the working group as a common ground of understanding the circumstances of the water body and its catchment. A draft program, or draft action plan, will be developed based on the findings in the diagnostic study. In parallel, donors' meetings may be organized to let potential donor countries and organizations know the nature of the issue and possible ways and means for solution. The program elaborated should be adopted by basin countries as a binding document. The riparian countries should also agree upon the implementation scheme for the adopted program, which may include establishment of a river/lake basin organization. References: David, L.J. (1988). "Environmentally Sound Management of the Zambezi River Basin." Int'l J. Water Resources Development, Vol 4(2), pp 80-102. Glantz, M.H. (1995). "In Central Asia, A Sea Dies: A Sea Also Rises." Climate-Related Impacts International Network Newsletter, Vol 10(2), p 1. LeMarquand, D.G. (1980). "International Action for International Rivers." Water International, Vol 6, pp 147-151. Meeting of the Representatives of the Caspian Sea (1994). Declaration on Environmental Cooperation in the Caspian Sea. Meeting of the Representatives of the Caspian Sea, Almaty. Rodinov, S.N. (1990). "A Climatological Analysis of the Unusual Recent Rise in the Level of the Caspian Sea." Soviet geography, vol 31(4), pp 265-275. SADC (1994). Water Resources Projects in the Southern African Region. SPLASH, Vol 10(1), pp 4-6. Shafer, J.M. (1994). "Caspian Sea Lake-Level Fluctuation and Near-Shore Oil Production." World Resource Review, vol 6(1), pp 112-124. UNEP (1985). African Ministerial Conference on the Environment - Report of the Conference - United Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi World Bank (1990). Projects on International Waterways - Operational Directive (O.D.) 7.50 - World Bank, Washington, D.C. World Bank (1993). Water Resources Management - A World Bank Policy Paper - World Bank, Washington, D.C. World Bank (1994a). A Guide to the Formulation of Water Resources Strategy - World Bank Technical Paper Number 263 - World Bank, Washington, D.C. World Bank (1994b). International Inland Waters - World Bank Technical Paper Number 239 - World Bank, Washington, D.C. World Bank (1994c). International River Basin Organizations in Sub-Saharan Africa - World Bank Technical Paper Number 250 - World Bank, Washington, D.C. World Bank (1994d). Turkmenistan - World Bank Country Study - World Bank, Washington, D.C. World Bank (1994e). Aral Sea Program - Phase I. Briefing paper for the Proposed Donors Meeting to be Held on June 23-24, 1994 in Paris. World Bank, Washington, D.C. World Bank (1994f). A Strategy for Managing Water in the Middle East and North Africa. World Bank, Washington, D.C. ---------------
|
|
|
|||
Table
of Contents
 |
© United
Nations Environment Programme | privacy
policy | terms
and conditions |contacts|support
UNEP | UNEP
sitemap
|