Is Water Different from Biodiversity? Governance Criteria for the Effective Management of Transboundary Resources

• Published date: 01 April 2014
• Author: Michelle Lim
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/reel.12072
• Date: 01 April 2014

Is Water Different from Biodiversity? Governance

Criteria for the Effective Management of

Transboundary Resources

Michelle Lim

Effective law for complex environmental issues

requires a combination of sound policy, sophisticated

doctrinal scholarship and effective institutional

arrangements that suit the social and economic

context. Together, these elements create the basis for

good resource governance. This article sets out criteria

that define an effective governance framework for

transboundary resource management. To advance

legal scholarship, access to such criteria can help

frame comprehensive strategies for more effective

environmental law. The article extends previously

developed criteria for the effective transboundary con-

servation of terrestrial biodiversity to transboundary

water resource governance. It discusses the relative

ease with which each of the criteria can be fulfilled in

the management of the different resources and identi-

fies areas for cross-sectoral learning. The article sug-

gests that the principles set out in the criteria can also

guide the management of other shared resources.

INTRODUCTION

State boundaries rarely conform to the parameters of

ecological units. Important watersheds and interna-

tionally significant natural areas are often transected by

national boundaries. Without an appropriate manage-

ment regime for the whole ecological unit, there is a

heightened risk of conflict concerning the use of the

shared resource.1

International border areas contain some of the world’s

most biologically intact ecosystems. Many sites that

merit conservation straddle land boundaries.2Ecosys-

tem components on each side of the boundary line are,

however, often subject to conflicting management and

land use practices.3Due to climate change-induced

range shifts, more than half of the world’s species are in

need of transboundary management.4Global climatic

change means that larger intact ecosystems and

transboundary approaches to biodiversity conservation

are of increasing importance.5

40% of the world’s population lives within a river basin

that traverses international boundaries.6Almost half of

the Earth’s land surface lies within one of the world’s

263 international water basins. These basins generate

60% of global freshwater flow.7The hydrological link-

ages of international basins create common interests

among the riparian States of each basin.8Decreased

water availability, degrading water quality, rapid popu-

lation growth, unilateral water development and

uneven levels of economic development create signifi-

cant challenges and have the potential to strain rela-

tions among co-riparians.9Competing priorities can

result in regional conflicts between these States and the

different users of water have competing priorities con-

1C. Shine, ‘Legal Mechanisms to Strengthen and Safeguard

Transboundary Protected Areas’, in: Parks for Peace: International

Conference on Transboundary Protected Areas as a Vehicle for

International Cooperation, Conference Proceedings (World Commis-

sion on Protected Areas, 1997), 37.

2J. Singh, Study on the Development of Transboundary Natural

Resource Management Areas in Southern Africa – Global Review:

Lessons Learned (Biodiversity Support Program, 1999), at 91–94;

A.H. Westing, ‘Establishment and Management of Transfrontier

Reserves for Conf‌lict Prevention and Conf‌idence Building’, 25:2 Envi-

ronmental Conservation (1998), 91.

3See J. Singh, n. 2 above.

4L. Hannah, ‘A Global Conservation System for Climate-Change

Adaptation’, 24:1 Conservation Biology (2010), 70.

5S. Butchart et al., ‘Global Biodiversity: Indicators of Recent

Declines’, 328:5982 Science (2010), 1164; J.A. Wiens and D.

Bachelet, ‘Matching the Multiple Scales of Conservation with the

Multiple Scales of Climate Change’, 24:1 Conservation Biology

(2010), 51; H. Reid and K. Swiderska, Biodiversity, Climate Change

and Poverty: Exploring the Links (International Institute for Environ-

ment and Development (IIED), 2008); L. Hannah, n. 4 above; M.R.W.

Rands et al., ‘Biodiversity Conservation: Challenges Beyond 2010’,

329:5997 Science (2010), 1298.

6United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), Atlas of Interna-

tional Freshwater Agreements (UNEP, 2002), at 2; A.H. Westing

(ed.), Global Resources and International Conf‌lict: Environmental

Factors in Strategic Policy and Action (Oxford University Press,

1986).

7D. Shelton, ‘International Cooperation on Shared Natural

Resources’, in: S. Hart (ed.), Shared Resources: Issues of Gover-

nance (International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN),

2008), 2; UNEP, n. 6 above, at 2.

8See UNEP, n. 6 above, at 6.

9UNEP, Africa: Atlas of Our Changing Environment (UNEP, 2008);

UNEP, n. 6 above, at 2.

bs_bs_banner

Review of European Community & International Environmental Law

RECIEL 23 (1) 2014. ISSN 2050-0386 DOI: 10.1111/reel.12072

© 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.

96