Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T10:18:42.984Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Legal aspects of transboundary water management: An analysis of the intergovernmental institutional arrangements in the Okavango River Basin

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 January 2020

Goemeone E.J. Mogomotsi Open the ORCID record for Goemeone E.J. Mogomotsi [Opens in a new window] ,
Patricia K. Mogomotsi Open the ORCID record for Patricia K. Mogomotsi [Opens in a new window]  and
Ketlhatlogile Mosepele
Goemeone E.J. Mogomotsi
Affiliation:
Okavango Research Institute, University of Botswana, Private Bag 285, Maun, Botswana Email: [email protected]
Patricia K. Mogomotsi
Affiliation:
Okavango Research Institute, University of Botswana, Private Bag 285, Maun, Botswana Email: [email protected]
Ketlhatlogile Mosepele
Affiliation:
Okavango Research Institute, University of Botswana, Private Bag 285, Maun, Botswana Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The Okavango River Basin is a transboundary basin which serves as an important source of water resources for three riparian Southern African states, namely Angola, Botswana, and Namibia. If not properly managed, the Okavango River Basin is a potential source of conflict amongst the three countries. In order to reduce the likelihood of disputes among riparian states, the Governments of Angola, Botswana, and Namibia have signed and ratified an agreement establishing the institutional framework for the management of the shared water resources. This article discusses the legal aspects of the institutional arrangements in the Okavango River Basin. It highlights the importance of river basin organizations in the effective management of transboundary watercourses. This article concludes that the institutional arrangements between the riparian states with access to the Okavango River provide the framework for resolving possible disputes peacefully. Further, it concludes that these institutional arrangements promote co-operation over the management of the shared water resources.

Keywords

Okavango River Basinriparian statesthe tragedy of the commonstransnational water managementwater conflicts
Type
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Information
Leiden Journal of International Law , Volume 33 , Issue 2 , June 2020 , pp. 391 - 408
Copyright
© Foundation of the Leiden Journal of International Law 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 See ‘The List of Wetlands of International Importance’, Secretariat of the Convention on Wetlands, 18 October 2019, at 10, available at www.ramsar.org/sites/default/files/documents/library/sitelist.pdf (accessed 19 February 2019); West, D. T., van As, J. G. and van As, L. L., ‘Surface Water Quality in the Okavango Delta Panhandle, Botswana’, (2015) 40(4) African Journal of Aquatic Science 359CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

2 Douglas, C. M. S.et al., ‘Identifying the Determinants of Tree Distributions along a Large Ephemeral River’, (2018) 9(6) Ecosphere 1CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3 Edwards, P. J., Williard, K. W. J. and Schoonover, J. E., ‘Fundamentals of Watershed Hydrology’, (2015) 154(1) Journal of Contemporary Water Research & Education 3CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

4 Ibid.

5 Ibid.

6 King, J.et al., ‘Pro-active Management: The Role of Environmental flows in Transboundary Cooperative Planning for the Okavango River System’, (2014) 59(3–4) Hydrological Sciences Journal 786CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

7 Turton, A. R, Ashton, P. and Cloete, E., ‘An Introduction to the Hydropolitical Drivers in the Okavango River Basin’, in Turton, A. R., Ashton, P. J. and Cloete, E. (eds.), Transboundary Rivers, Sovereignty and Development: Hydropolitical Drivers in the Okavango River Basin (2003), 9Google Scholar.

8 See D. Russi et al., The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity for Water and Wetlands (2013).

9 Jaramilo, F.et al., ‘Priorities and Interactions of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) with Focus on Wetlands’, (2019) Water 619CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

10 Ibid.

11 Ibid.

12 Appelgren, B. and Klohn, W., ‘Management of Transboundary Water Resources for Water Security; Principles, Approaches and State Practice’, (1997) 21(2) Natural Resources Forum 91, at 91CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

13 See Petersen-Perlman, J. D., Veilleux, J. C. and Wolf, A. T., ‘International Water Conflict and Cooperation: Challenges and Opportunities’, (2017) 42(2) Water International 105CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

14 Williamson, O. E., ‘Calculativeness, Trust, and Economic Organization’, (1993) 36(1) Journal of Law and Economics 453CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

15 Ibid.

16 Ibid.

17 Ibid.

18 Ibid.

19 See D. North, Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance (1990).

20 Khalil, E. L., ‘Organizations versus Institutions’, (1995) 151(3) Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics 445, at 455Google Scholar.

21 Ibid.

22 D. North, supra note 19, at 3.

23 Faundez, J., ‘Douglass North’s Theory of Institutions: Lessons for Law and Development’, (2016) 8 Hague Journal on the Rule of Law 373, at 404CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

24 Greif, A. and Kingston, C., ‘Institutions: Rules or Equilibria?’, in Schofield, N. and Caballero, G. (eds.), Political Economy of Institutions, Democracy and Voting (2011), at 14Google Scholar.

25 Tamanaha, B. Z., ‘The Knowledge and Policy Limits of New Institutional Economics on Development’, (2015) 49(1) Journal of Economic Issues 89, at 89CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

26 Helmke, G. and Levitsky, S., ‘Informal Institutions and Comparative Politics: A Research Agenda’, (2004) 2(4) Perspective in Politics 725, at 725CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

27 Tamanaha, supra note 25, at 91.

28 Faundez, supra note 23, at 406.

29 Ibid.

30 See generally Hodgson, G. M, ‘What are Institutions?’, (2006) 40(1) Journal of Economic Issues 1CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

31 Ibid., at 10.

32 Hodgson, G. M, ‘Institutions and individual: Interactions and evolution’, (2007) 28(1) Organization Studies 95, at 96CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

33 Ménard, C., ‘A New Institutional Approach to Organization’, in Ménard, C. and Shirley, M. M (eds.), Handbook of New Institutional Economics (2008), 281, at 283CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

34 Hodgson, supra note 32, at 1.

35 Hardin, G., ‘The Tragedy of the Commons’, (1968) 162(3859) Science 1243Google ScholarPubMed.

36 Ibid.

37 Muller, M. F., Muller-Itten, M. C. and Gorelick, S. M., ‘How Jordan and Saudi Arabia are Avoiding a Tragedy of the Commons over Shared Groundwater’, (2017) 53 Water Resources Research 5451CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

38 K. Kim and K. Glaumann, Transboundary Water Management: Who Does What, Where?: Analysing the Data in SIWI’s Transboundary Water Management Database (2012) 8.

39 Schrijver, N., ‘Managing the Global Commons: Common Good or Common Sink?’, (2016) 37(7) Third World Quarterly 1252CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

40 Ibid.

41 Hirsch, P., ‘Governing Water as a Common Good in the Mekong River Basin: Issues of scale’, (2006) 1(2) Transforming Cultures eJournal 104CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

42 See J. Crawford, Brownlie’s Principles of Public International Law (2012), 339.

43 Brilmager, L. and Klein, N., ‘Land and Sea: Two Sovereignty Regimes in Search of a Common Denominator’, 2001 (33) Journal of International Law and Politics 703Google Scholar.

44 Zetland, D., ‘Desalination and the Commons: Tragedy or Triumph?’, (2017) 33(6) International Journal of Water Resources Development 890CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

45 Petersen-Perlman, Veilleux and Wolf, supra note 13, at 106.

46 Hardin, supra note 35, at 1245.

47 Ibid.

48 Akamani, K. and Wilson, P. I., ‘Toward the Adaptive Governance of Transboundary Water Resources’, (2011) 4(6) Conservation Letters 409CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

49 Ibid.

50 Gorelick, S. M. and Zheng, C., ‘Global Change and the Groundwater Management Challenge’, (2015) 51(5) Water Resources Management 3031CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

51 See generally Madigele, P. K., ‘The Economics of Institutions, Equity, Efficiency and Effectiveness: The Case of Water Distribution in Lower Sundays River Valley, South Africa’, (2017) 7(2) Environment and Natural Resources Research 98CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

52 Huitema, D. and Meijerink, S., ‘The Politics of River Basin Organizations: Institutional Design Choices, Coalitions, and Consequence’, (2017) 22(2) Ecology & Society 2, at 42CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

53 De Stefano, L.et al., ‘Climate Change and the Institutional Resilience of International River Basins’, (2012) 49(1) Journal of Peace Research 193CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

54 See generally Kuokkanen, T., ‘Water Security and International Law’, (2017) 20 Potchefstroom Electronic Law Journal 1CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

55 Ibid.

56 Distefano, G., ‘Theories of Territorial Sovereignty: An Appraisal’, (2010) 41 Journal of Sharia Law 27Google Scholar.

57 Cambou, D. and Smis, S., ‘Permanent Sovereignty over Natural Resources from a Human Rights Perspective: Natural Resources Exploitation and Indigenous Peoples’ Rights in The Arctic’, (2013) 22(1) Michigan State International Law Review 347Google Scholar.

58 Heyns, P. S. V. H., Patrick, M. J. and Turton, A. R., ‘Transboundary Water Resource Management in Southern Africa: Meeting the Challenge of Joint Planning and Management in the Orange River Basin’, (2008) 24(3) Water Resources Management 371CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

59 Spiegel, C., ‘International Water Law: The Contributions of Western United States Water Law to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Non-Navigable Uses of International Watercourses’, (2005) 15 Duke Journal of Comparative & International Law 333Google Scholar.

60 Dellapenna, J. W., ‘Treaties as Instruments for Managing Internationally-Shared Water Resources: Restricted Sovereignty vs. Community of Property’, (1994) 26 Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law 27Google Scholar.

61 Rahaman, M. M., ‘Principles of International Water Law: Creating Effective Transboundary Water Resources Management’, (2009) 1(3) International Journal of Sustainable Society 207CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

62 United States Department of Justice Opinions of the Attorney-General of the United States (1985) 283.

63 See Spiegel, supra note 59.

64 Qureshi, W. A., ‘Equitable Apportionment of Shared Transboundary River Waters: A Case Study of Modifications of the Indus Waters Treaty’, (2017) 18 San Diego International Law Journal 199Google Scholar.

65 Schwabach, A. S., ‘Transboundary Environmental Harm and Stat Responsibility: Customary International Law’, in Schwabach, A. S. and Cockfield, A. R (eds.), International Law and Institutions (2009), 200Google Scholar.

66 Eckstein, G., ‘Application of International Water Law to Transboundary Groundwater Resources, and the Slovak-Hungarian Dispute over Gabcikovo Nagymaros’, (1995) 19 Suffolk Transnational Law Review 67Google Scholar.

67 Ibid.

68 Rahaman, M. M., ‘Principles of Transboundary Water Resources Management and Ganges Treaties: An Analysis’, (2009) 25(1) Water Resources Development 159CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

69 See Spiegel, supra note 59, at 36.

70 Hall, R. E. ‘Transboundary Groundwater Management: Opportunities under International Law for Groundwater Management in the United States-Mexico Border Region’, (2004) 21(3) Arizona Journal of International & Comparative Law 873Google Scholar.

71 Ibid.

72 Loures, F. R., ‘The Dragon as Part of Transboundary Basin “Villages”: Community of Interests and International Law in China’, (2016) 24(5) Journal of Water Law 220Google Scholar.

73 Kofele-Kale, N. and Gonzaga, F. M., ‘International Law and Domestic Legislation in the Sustainable Management of Transboundary Watercourses: The Case of the Amazon River Basin’, (2011) 26 Journal of Environmental Law & Litigation 147Google Scholar.

74 Lazerwitz, D. J., ‘The Flow of International Water Law: The International Law Commission’s Law of the Non-Navigational Uses of International Watercourses’, (1993) 1(1) Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies 247Google Scholar.

75 Case Relating to the Territorial Jurisdiction of the International Commission of the River Oder (United Kingdom v. Poland), PCIJ Rep. Series A No 23, at 27 (River Oder case).

76 Rossi, C. R., ‘The Transboundary Dispute over the Waters of the Silala/Siloli: Legal Vandalism and Goffmanian Metaphor’, (2017) 57(1) Stanford Journal of International Law 55Google Scholar.

77 Ibid.

78 Art. 5(2) of the UN Watercourses Convention.

79 Dema, M. J., ‘A Non-Zero Sum Game: How Game Theory can inform Better Transboundary Water Rights Treaty Drafting’, (2014) 2 European Scientific Journal 126Google Scholar.

80 Rahaman, supra note 68, at 160.

81 Vick, M. J., ‘The Law of International Waters: Reasonable Utilization’, (2014) 12(1) Chicago-Kent Journal of International and Comparative Law 141Google Scholar.

82 Ibid.

83 Blumstein, S., ‘Managing Adaptation: International Donors’ Influence on International River Basin Organizations in Southern Africa’, (2017) 15(4) International River Basin Management 461CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

84 Gabčikovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary/Slovakia), Judgment of 25 September 1997, [1997] ICJ Rep. 692, at. 7, para. 78.

85 McIntyre, O., ‘Environmental Protection of International Rivers’, (1998) 10(1) Journal of Environmental Law 79CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

86 Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v. Uruguay), Judgment of 20 April 2010, [2010] ICJ Rep. 977, at 14, para. 177.

87 McIntyre, O., ‘The Protection of Freshwater Ecosystems Revisited: Towards a Common Understanding of the “Ecosystems Approach” to the Protection of Transboundary Water Resources’, (2014) 23(1) Review of European, Comparative & International Environmental Law 88CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

88 Parhi, P. K. and Sankhua, R. N., ‘Beyond the Transboundary River: Issues of Riparian Responsibilities’, (2013) 94(4) Journal of The Institution of Engineers (India): Series A 257CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

89 Pulp Mills on the River Uruguaysupra note 86, at 14, para, 177.

90 Indicator 6.5.2 of the Global Indicator Framework of the Progress on Sustainable Development Goals.

91 Ormer, M.et al., ‘Good Transboundary Water Governance in the 2015 Sustainable Development Goals: A Legal Perspective’, (2015) 40(7) Water International 969CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

92 Parhi and Sankhua, supra, note 88.

93 Brilmager and Klein, supra, note 43, at 705.

94 Ashton, P. and Neal, M., ‘Public Involvement in Water Resource Management within the Okavango River Basin’, in Brusch, C.et al. (eds.), Public Participation in the Governance of International Freshwater Resources (2005), 169Google Scholar.

95 Wolski, P.et al., ‘Evolution of River Basin Management in the Okavango System, Southern Africa’, in Ferrier, R. C. and Jenkins, A. (eds.), Handbook of Catchment Management (2010), 457Google Scholar.

96 Hitchcock, R. K., ‘Water Resource Use and Management in the Okavango System of Southern Africa: The Political Economy of a State, Community and Private Resource Control’, (1999) 31 Botswana Notes and Records 83Google Scholar.

97 I. Pinheiro, G. Gabaake and P. Heyns, ‘Cooperation in the Okavango river basin: The OKACOM Perspective’, in Turton, Ashton and Cloete, supra note 7, 105, at 115.

98 Mbaiwa, J. E., ‘Causes and Possible Solutions to Water Resource Conflicts in the Okavango River Basin: The Case of Angola, Namibia and Botswana’, (2004) 29(15–18) Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, Parts A/B/C 1319, at 1322CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

99 Boge, V., ‘A Glass Full or Half Empty? Water, Conflicts and Cooperation in Southern Africa’, in Basedau, M. and Mehler, A. (eds.), Resource Politics in Sub-Saharan Africa (2005), 273, at 294Google Scholar.

100 Ibid.

101 Pinheiro et al., supra note 97, at 114.

102 Ibid.

103 Ibid.

104 Ibid.

105 Marcantonio, R. A., ‘The Okavango River Basin Agreement: An Analysis’, (2016) 35(3) African Geographical Review 227CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

106 Collier, R., ‘The Political Economy of Natural Resources’, (2010) 77(4) Social Research 1105Google Scholar.

107 Marcantonio, supra note 105, at 231.

108 The preamble to the OKACOM Agreement.

109 Salman, S. M. A., ‘The Helsinki Rules, the UN Watercourses Convention and the Berlin Rules: Perspectives on International Water Law’, (2007) 23(4) Water Resources Development 625CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

110 Rahaman, supra note 68, at 158.

111 Art. 1.1 of the OKACOM Agreement.

112 Art. 1.2 of the OKACOM Agreement.

113 Ibid.

114 Art. 1.3 of the OKACOM Agreement.

115 Keller, E. J. K., ‘Critiquing Cooperation: Transboundary Water Governance and Adaptive Capacity in the Orange-Senqu Basin’, (2012) 149(1) Journal of Contemporary Water Research & Education 41CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

116 Thu, H. N. and When, U., ‘Data Sharing in International Transboundary Contexts: The Vietnamese Perspective on Data Sharing in the Lower Mekong Basin’, (2016) 536 Journal of Hydrology 351CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

117 Ibid.

118 In the case of Botswana Mining Workers’ Union and Another v. Debswana Diamond Company (Pty) Ltd 1997 BLR 228, at 239 the court held that ‘In an enactment “shall” shall be construed as imperative and “may” as permissive and empowering … There is therefore no chance that “shall” in any Botswana statute can mean anything else than “shall” and it must be construed as imperative.’

119 Keller, supra note 115, at 44.

120 Gander, M. J., ‘International Water Law and Supporting Water Management Principles in the Development of a Model Transboundary Agreement between Riparians in International River Basins’, (2014) 39(3) Water International 315CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

121 Art. 2.1 of the OKACOM Agreement.

122 Art. 2.3 of the OKACOM Agreement.

123 Art. 2.4 of the OKACOM Agreement.

124 See Tănase, C., ‘International Commission for the Protection of River Danube’, (2016) 6(2) Journal of Danubian Studies and Research 156Google Scholar.

125 Sattar, E., Robison, J. and McCool, D., ‘Evolution of Water Institutions in the Indus River Basin: Reflections from the Law of the Colorado River’, (2018) 51(1) University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform 715Google Scholar.

126 Art. 3.1 of the OKACOM Agreement.

127 Art. 3.2 of the OKACOM Agreement.

128 Art. 3.3 of the OKACOM Agreement.

129 Ibid.

130 Metawie, A. F., ‘History of Co-operation in the Nile Basin’, (2004) 20(1) International Journal of Water Resources Development 47, at 51CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

131 Art. 3.4 of the OKACOM Agreement.

132 Ibid.

133 Ross, A. and Connell, D., ‘The Evolution and Performance of River Basin Management in the Murray Darling Basin’, (2016) 21(3) Ecology and SocietyCrossRefGoogle Scholar.

134 Martin, L. L., ‘Interests, Power and Multilateralism’, (1992) 46(4) International Organization 765CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

135 Ross and Connel, supra note 133.

136 Art. 3.5 of the OKACOM Agreement.

137 Ibid.

138 Lebotse, K. K., ‘Southern African Development Community Protocol of Shared Watercourses: Challenges of Implementation’, (1999) 12(1) Leiden Journal of International Law 173CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

139 Art. 4.1 of the OKACOM Agreement.

140 Art. 4.2 of the OKACOM Agreement.

141 Marcantonio, R. A., ‘The Okavango River Basin Agreement: An analysis’, (2016) 35(5) African Geographical Review 227CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

142 Art. 4.3 of the OKACOM Agreement.

143 Kaniaru, W., ‘From Scarcity to Security: Water as a Potential Factor for Conflict and Cooperation in Southern Africa’, (2015) 22(3) South African Journal of International Affairs 381CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

144 Art. 4.4 of the OKACOM Agreement.

145 Art. 4.6 of the OKACOM Agreement.

146 Ibid.

147 See Keller, supra note 115.

148 L. Swatuk, ‘Kant and Should: Strategic Thoughts about “Wise Use” of the Okavango Delta System’, in Turton, Ashton and Cloete, supra note 7, at 119.

149 Kanyamana, C., Msukwa Strategic Interests in Transboundary River Cooperation in Southern Africa – the Case of the Okavango River (Stellenbosch: Stellenbosch University, Unpublished Masters Dissertation, 2010) 49Google Scholar.

150 Wolski et al., in Ferrier and Jenkins, supra note 95, at 457.

151 Art. 5.1 of the OKACOM Agreement.

152 Art. 5.2 of the OKACOM Agreement.

153 Art. 5.3 of the OKACOM Agreement.

154 Art. 5.4 of the OKACOM Agreement.

155 Choudhury, E. and Islam, S., ‘Nature of Transboundary Water Conflicts: Issues of Complexity and the Enabling Conditions for Negotiated Cooperation’, (2015) 15 Journal of Contemporary Water Research & Education 43CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

156 Saruchera, D. and Lautze, J., ‘Transboundary River Basin Organizations in Africa: Assessing the Secretariat’, (2016) 18(15) Water Policy 1035CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

157 Art. 6.1 of the OKACOM Agreement.

158 Art. 6.2 of the OKACOM Agreement.

159 Art. 6.3 of the OKACOM Agreement.

160 See Coase, R. H., ‘The Nature of the Firm’, (1937) 4(16) Economica 386CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

161 See Williamson, O. E., ‘The New Institutional Economics: Taking Stock, Looking Ahead’, (2000) 38(8) Journal of Economic Literature 595CrossRefGoogle Scholar.