An overview of the content and historical context of the international freshwater agreements that South Africa has entered into with neighbouring countries

Despite international calls for data and information sharing in transboundary waters and basin-specific evidence of its importance to cooperative management, no systematic research has been undertaken to answer questions of where, how frequently, and which water resources data and information are exchanged. This paper examines all available transboundary water agreements signed between 1900 and 2007 to determine the degree to which water resources data and information is exchanged in the world's regions, how the level of exchange has developed over time, and the different ways in which data and information sharing has been codified in practice. In doing so, we reveal important trends regarding the mechanisms, types, and frequencies of water resources data and information sharing?as well as differences across temporal and spatial scales, by treaty type and function, and regime type. The results indicate that data and information exchange as already practiced is more nuanced and, in some senses, widespread than may commonly be recognized. Further, the results reveal key linkages between democracy and data and information exchange and provide a basis to test analogous linkages related to data sharing and other variables in transboundary water settings

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 75%

Water resources data and information exchange in transboundary water treaties

Gerlak

Lautze

Giordano

2010

“…Fox and Sneddon (2007), for example, argued that transboundary river basin agreements based on international watercourse law permit the legal principle of 'equitable utilisation' to be interpreted according to each riparian's own wish within its territories. Kistin et al (2009) reported that while there are many multilateral water agreements in place in Southern Africa, they lack explicit arrangements on water allocation. programmes promoting unqualified ''cooperation of any sort, no matter how slight'' (UNDP 2006: 228) were criticised on the grounds that negative forms of cooperation need reform or resolution, not encouragement.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Transboundary water interaction II: the influence of ‘soft’ power

Zeitoun

Mirumachi

Warner

2010

140

This paper seeks to broaden the analysis of transboundary water interaction, by examining and interpreting the influence of 'soft' power therein. The 'soft' power of persuasion is understood to be exercised through discursive and to a lesser extent ideational means, and is interpreted in terms of compliance related to distributive (conflictual) or integrative (consensual) ends (after Scott (1994)). The focus is on inter-state water conflicts in hegemonic political contexts, where, it is found, the 'first among equals' has a greater ability to exploit 'soft' power and to determine the outcome. 'Soft' power is also seen to influence the choices states make or avoid in their transboundary water interaction, which explains in part how treaties intending to manage conflict may in fact delay or perpetuate it. For example, 'soft' power can be used by the basin hegemon to frame inequitable forms of cooperation in a cooperative light, such that unfair and ultimately unsustainable transboundary arrangements are replicated by the international donor community. Non-hegemonic riparian states also employ their capacity of 'soft' power, though may find themselves with little choice other than to comply with the arrangement established by the basin hegemon. The findings stress the importance of analysts questioning claims of interaction promoted as 'cooperative', and of examining the 'soft' power plays that underlie all transboundary water arrangements. Exemplification is provided through transboundary river basins and aquifers around the globe.

“…Dinar et al, 2019 ; Mitchell et al, 2015 ). There are articles that reviewed how the scope and function of transboundary water treaties have changed over time globally (Giordano et al, 2014 ; Zawahri et al, 2016 ) or regionally (Jacobs, 2012 ; Kistin et al, 2009 ). Other case studies traced cooperative political efforts in the Iberian region (Lopes, 2012 ) or between China and India (Xie & Jia, 2017 ).…”

Section: International Environmental Agreements Of Water: Lessons Learntmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reflecting on twenty years of international agreements concerning water governance: insights and key learning

Mirumachi

Hurlbert

2022

The purpose of this article is to examine the research advanced in the journal, International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics that represents key insights into international agreements on water and their political, legal, economic and cross-disciplinary dimensions for water governance. The article analyses evidence and lessons learnt over the last twenty years to inform policy through a review of theoretical advances, innovations in principles and policy instruments, outcomes of problem-solving and knowledge gained regarding water agreements and associated institutions. Important international agreement principles of no significant harm and economic frames of water as a ‘commons’ advance equity and community of interest in relation to water. The studies on water, sanitation and hygiene point to the ways the role of the state can be advanced in achieving Sustainable Development Goals and in complex contexts of water scarcity and public private partnerships. Cross-disciplinary learnings substantiate the existence and utility of multiple water frames in legal arrangements and use of multiple policy instruments. Cross-disciplinary insights are significant in addressing equity, whether through the nascent development of water indicators or in advancing social learning. Water governance frameworks increasingly focus on adaptation by incorporating multiple stakeholders. These findings that advance equity and inclusivity are tempered by crucial lessons in our understanding of the very contested, power-laden nature of water governance that impact agency at multiple scales and policy coordination across sectors of water, food and energy.