Good friend and colleague Gabriel Eckstein, who runs the International Water Law Project and its blog, just posted an item on the recent Guarani aquifer agreement signed by Paraguay, Uruguay, Brazil, and Argentina (PUBA).
He begins:
Last week it was the Nile Basin riparians [see here and here]. Now it's the countries overlying the Guarani Aquifer. On August 2, 2010, the four nations overlaying the massive South American aquifer – Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, and Uruguay – signed the Agreement on the Guarani Aquifer [Spanish] [Portuguese] in San Juan, Argentina (original text can be found on the Brazilian Ministry of Foreign Relations website). Has humanity finally reached its senses and decided to pursue global hydraulic harmony?
While one might be inclined to wax enthusiastic that such an achievement heralds cooperation in managing the world's largest liquid freshwater resource, Eckstein is not so optimistic:
It is unfortunately unlikely that a global era of hydro-cooperation is at hand. Moreover, a review of this new Guarani instrument reveals a bare-bones agreement that contains less than ideal cooperative mechanisms. In particular, the agreement places great emphasis on individual states’ right while limiting obligations to cooperate and jointly management the aquifer. Article 2, for example, affords the parties the right of exclusive dominion over the portions of the aquifer that underlay each nation, while Articles 1 and 3 evince similar notions of sovereign rights. The idea that a state can have sovereign rights over a water body (or a portion of that water body) that flows across an international border harkens back to the long-discredited Harmon Doctrine. As international water law expert and former UN International Law Commission member, Dr. Stephen McCaffrey, modestly stated in a 2009 law review article [The International Law Commission Adopts Draft Articles on Transboundary Aquifers, Amer. J. of Int’l Law, Vol. 103, pp. 272-293 (2009)], where “the subject matter is something that moves from one state to another, from underground to surface, from surface to atmosphere, and so on in the hydrologic cycle, the notion that states have sovereignty over it seems a far from perfect match.”
In contrast, the Guarani Agreement places few limitations on sovereignty in relation to the rights of other parties. While it does contain provisions alluding to well-known international water law principles that could moderate the problems associated with sovereign claims over fresh water resources (e.g., principles of reasonable and equitable use [Arts. 3 & 4] and of no significant harm [Arts. 3, 6, & 7]), it merely references these notions without providing definitions or elaboration. In other words, the Guarani nations agreed mostly to leave each other alone in their respective Guarani-related territories and hydro-activities and only modestly agreed to cooperate.
Yes, the four nations did agree to share information generated about the aquifer (Arts. 9 & 12) as well as to notify each other of planned measures that may result in a transboundary impact (arts. 9, 10, & 11). And there is some language on the conservation and environmental protection of the Guarani (Art. 4) and the need to identify critical areas, especially in border regions, that require special measures (Art. 14). However, the language used in these provisions leaves quite a bit of room for interpretation and suggests that the parties themselves could not agree on the extent to which they want to cooperate. Similarly, the absence of any language describing the responsibilities and authority of the commission that is to be created under Article 15 intimate the creation of a paper tiger.
But he does see some hope:
Notwithstanding its shortcomings, the Guarani Agreement can still be regarded as an important milestone in the world of international water law. Even in its less-than-ideal formulation, it constitutes progress in the effort to have more nations cooperate over shared fresh water resources. At the very least, it is an agreement for some measure of cooperation. If the four Guarani nations actually ratify the instrument (which appears likely), they will join a very small club composed of states who are party to a cross-border ground water treaty. The number of these treaties can be counted on one hand and include the complex management mechanisms governing the use of the Genevese Aquifer [French and unofficial English translation] along the French-Swiss border, and the rudimentary consultative and data-sharing agreements implemented for the Nubian Sandstone and Northwestern Sahara aquifers in North Africa. Given the dearth of treaties over transboundary aquifers (in comparison with the thousands of agreements over transboundary rivers and lakes), and the fact that there are at least 273 transboundary aquifers globally and that millions of people around the world rely on transboundary aquifers for their sustenance and livelihoods, the Agreement on the Guarani Aquifer is still a welcomed development.
Access the English version of the Guarani Aquifer Strategic Action Program (43 megabytes). Thanks to Annabel Symington for sending me this link.
Here are my previous posts on the Guarani aquifer: 26 June 2010;18 April 2010; 10 April 2010; 8 December 2009. And here is a frivolous post.
At this point I think it's best to invoke a Paraguayan aphorism:
"A hatchet in the mouth is more harmful than a hatchet in the hand." -- Paraguayan proverb
Come and join the Facebook page Protect the Guarani Aquifer (aka "Aquífero Guarani")" at http://www.facebook.com/pages/Protect-the-Guarani-Aquifer-aka-Aquifero-Guarani/135303956503676. Read there that there is an US base in Paraguay just above the Guarani Aquifer whereas in Argentina the US is making pressure for the installation of a military base in Misiones (also just above the aquifer). The goal, according to politic analysts, is supposedly the control of the drinking water of the aquifer. The aquifer being a rich source of Tritium, the main ingredient of the Hydrogen bomb, besides the proximity of electric power of Itaipu hydroelectric dam, also make it an important military strategic point. Read it all and see the documentary videos in 4 major languages. Be aware and participate, diffuse the knowledge and recomend this page.
Posted by: Protect the Guarani Aquifer | Sunday, 06 February 2011 at 06:26 AM
It’s easier to work towards your own interests than working together as a group to solve a problem. It's even harder to unite other countries with different global agendas towards a common goal.
There's a lot of thought provoking video clips regarding complexity and how global problems become almost impossible to solve on a Facebook community page
http://www.facebook.com/thewatchmansrattle
Why do we have a tendency to fight one another when we know sharing results in the most optimum outcome for everyone? Why does our biology cause us to hurt the ones we love, hoard resources and compete with one another?
Heres the link to the video
http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=1493017207106
Posted by: Matt_solis | Friday, 20 August 2010 at 12:37 AM