biodiversity and international water policy · biodiversity and international water policy ......

BIODIVERSITY AND INTERNATIONALWATER POLICY

International Agreements and Experiences Related tothe Protection of Freshwater Ecosystems

Biodiversity and International Water Policy

International Agreements and Experiences Related to theProtection of Freshwater Ecosystems

Dr. Axel [email protected]

Dr. Waltina [email protected]

Dipl.-Ing. Rainer [email protected]

c/oInstitute for Management in Environmental PlanningTechnical University of BerlinFranklinstraße 28/2910587 Berlin

May 2001

Berlin

mailto:[email protected]



Biodiversity and International Water Policy

International Agreements and Experiences Related to theProtection of Freshwater Ecosystems

Executive Summary

1. The paper reviews current international conventions, agreements and declarations related to thesustainable use of freshwater ecosystems and freshwater biodiversity. Its primary objective is tostimulate discussions on practical experiences and challenges in freshwater ecosystem manage-ment. Since the topic of freshwater biodiversity is rather complex and ideas of appropriate man-agement tools are manifold the paper is far from being comprehensive. However, the paper high-lights some principle areas of concern taking due consideration of the challenges that people facewho are engaged in water management.

2. There are clear indications that freshwater ecosystems experience a significant loss of theirbiological diversity due to various human activities. Available data suggest that around 30% ofthe fish species are threatened, mostly because of habitat destruction. The introduction of alienspecies, pollution, and overexploitation – between 1961 and 1996 there was a five-fold increase inthe world-wide freshwater fish catch – are also important factors. The proportion of threatenedspecies of freshwater mammals is around 65%, those of the world’s amphibians about 25%.Equally, many birds and mammals depending on freshwater have lost their main breeding andfeeding areas due to the alteration of freshwater ecosystems. Furthermore, according to recentestimations earth has lost approximately 50% of its original wetlands in the last century. In gene-ral, it has been shown that freshwater biodiversity is more threatened than terrestrial ecosystems’biodiversity – even more than the much publicised plight of the world's forests.

3. In recent years, attitudes towards the integration of nature protection in water policy havechanged and biodiversity loss of freshwater is increasingly perceived as a key challenge for watermanagement practices in many countries. This can be traced back at least to two reasons: First,the recognition that the ongoing alteration of natural freshwater ecosystems is not a sustainableoption in the long term. Second, the insight that less modified freshwater ecosystems and thepreservation of freshwater biodiversity provides significant economic and social benefits to society.Freshwater ecosystems provide a multitude of services such as water supply, flow regulation,waste assimilation, and regulation of climate and the atmospheric chemical composition. Further,freshwater ecosystems provide essential goods for human well-being, e.g. food, power, and rawmaterial production as well as recreation. In spite of methodical difficulties in economic valuation,intrinsic values or non-use services such as cultural, aesthetic or scientific values are very impor-tant, even if such non-use values might be more considered in wealthy nations. Global economicbenefits of freshwater ecosystems is several times higher per unit area compared to terrestrialecosystems. Scientists have estimated, that the global wetland systems alone are worth someUS$ 4.0 trillion a year!

4. Considering functions and services of freshwater ecosystems as well as threats to their biodiver-sity, functional links with other key issues of international environmental policy are obvious. Risingawareness of these interdependencies have fostered increasing co-operation between the con-ventions already adopted. Recently, the topic “biodiversity of freshwater ecosystems” is tackled bya multitude of declarations, conventions and international organisations both inside and outsidethe UN system. In particular, with the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), the RamsarConvention, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) andthe Convention on International Watercourses, there is an emerging global framework foraction aiming to preserve the integrity of freshwater ecosystems. Although there is still room forimprovement, for example concerning the interrelation of wetland protection and climate change,or the translation of rather abstract principles into concrete action, increasing co-operationbetween the conventions mentioned can potentially lead to more coherent actions on the globallevel. Further, this network favours a convincing policy style of mutual learning, diffusion of bestpractice, monitoring and reporting.

5. Ecosystem management is proposed as a modern way of managing natural systems and gen-erally intends to use natural resources in a sustainable way. However, although there are stillsome controversies on how to translate the underlying ecosystem approach into concrete man-agement terms, parties of the CBD have preliminary agreed on basic principles to guide themodus operandi. A key point is that the ecosystem approach is a holistic process for integratingand delivering the three objectives of the CBD in a balanced way: conservation and sustainableuse of biological diversity combined with equitable sharing of biodiversity’s benefits. The idea ofintegrated river basin management is considered an adequate starting point for the implemen-tation of the ecosystem approach in water management. The reasoning is that river basins offermany advantages for strategic planning and that they represent the most appropriate geomor-phologic units on which to base ecosystem management practices. Therefore, ecosystem man-agement should be an integral component of comprehensive river basin management strategies.One weakness of the ecosystem management is that advocates often argue from the viewpoint ofnatural sciences and do not sufficiently ponder on necessary political, institutional and financialprerequisites.

6. Practical experiences on the feasibility of ecosystem-based water management still are limited.One lesson stands out when reviewing experiences with ecosystem-orientated management oftransboundary rivers and lakes in both developed and developing countries: the time neededbefore effective and positive joint actions may occur. Further, success stories suggest some keyprerequisites for co-operation: formal mechanism for fact finding on contentious issues; equalityand parity in structure and obligations; flexibility to adapt to changing circumstances; substantiveobjectives of the regimes that provide progressive direction and flexibility; a common understand-ing of the nature of the problem; and development of an influential and informal binational“community”.

7. Ecosystem management can not be realised if basic arrangements on water quality and quantityissues are not in force. However, progress on international co-operation not only depends on suc-cess in institution building but also on the installation of compensation mechanism or other crea-tive deals between parties that are sometimes fundamentally different and who have diverging in-terests and comparative advantages. In general, progress on international or regional level anddomestic policy reforms and institution building are two sides of the coin. Recently, some initia-

tives to enhance co-operation in ecosystem management between riparian states in the develop-ing world have been started and might be a good starting point to implement ecosystem-basedmanagement strategies.

8. Implementation of an ecosystem-based water management is a social rather than a technicalapproach and needs adequate institutions that reach the full range of uses and users that are con-nected in freshwater ecosystems. However, representation of all use and non-use values offreshwater’s biodiversity in decision-making is a basic problem. Further, administrative co-ordina-tion is a challenge in all countries. While the basic principles of ecosystem management empha-sise the need for decentralisation experiences demonstrate that devolution of responsibilities forwater management is not a self-evident process because of the many political obstacles. Successstories suggest that both an active and enabling role of central governments and decentralisationincluding the participation of local communities are crucial. Therefore, ecosystem managementtakes place at different scales and within flexible institutional arrangements. Further, effective co-ordination between sectoral-orientated governmental bodies adds to biodiversity protection in anentire river basin. Albeit there are some effective approaches to attenuate still existing obstacles ininter-sectoral co-ordination they are rarely applied in practice. However, there is a growing numberof countries that have started to tackle the institutional task and have recently adopted newapproaches which might facilitate ecosystem management hereafter.

9. Although many scientific studies emphasise the long-term economic gains of the protection offreshwater’s biodiversity institutional, political and market failures have generated a lack of ade-quate incentives which are necessary to encourage people to preserve an ecosystem’s integrity.The need for the creation of an enabling environment was traditionally neglected in classicalnature protection policy. Different incentive measures might be useful, in particular economic in-struments such as the removal of perverse incentives (e.g. subsidies in agricultural policy), directincentives and indirect incentives. But their applicability and success depends on various institu-tional and economic factors. However, creating an enabling environment which allows to (partly)reconcile environmental, economic and social goals is a major task for ecosystem management.

10. Ecosystem management poses important challenges in water management. In general, moreefforts have to be made in order to enhance the understanding of the underlying forces andthreats which lead to the obvious loss of freshwater’s biodiversity, e.g. interrelation of land use andthe integrity of freshwater ecosystems. Furthermore, data on the ecological, economic and socialvalue of water resources and their biota and the provision of goods and services by freshwaterecosystems has to be collated and should be translated into forms easily understandable anduseable. The development of organisational approaches and instruments might help to balancesocial, economic and environmental needs. This is particularly important in all cases where watermanagement primarily aims to meet elementary needs of the people. Against this background, thedevelopment of win-win options on the level of programs, plans and projects is a major task. Incases where ecological and social or economic goals of water management are (partly) conflict-ing, water experts have to develop cost-effective mitigation and compensation measures. In gen-eral, more examples of ecosystem-based management should be gathered from different regionsin order to illustrate potential problems, practical benefits, and alternative management models.

PrefaceOngoing efforts in international water policy demonstrate increasing concern for comprehensive watermanagement including ecological, economic and social aspects. As early as 1992, Agenda 21, waterchapter, defined objectives for protecting water resources, water quality and aquatic ecosystems, andadvocated an sustainable management of water resources, including the protection of freshwater eco-systems. The basic objectives and principles of Agenda 21 were reaffirmed and accentuated on theoccasions of e.g. CSD-6. Since then, promoters of an ecosystem-oriented approach have emphasisedthe need for holistic and comprehensive water management maintaining the biological diversity offreshwater ecosystems while recognising people’s social and economic needs.

Albeit protection of freshwater resources attracted increased international attention, success in imple-menting comprehensive water management strategies has been mixed. The political challenge for theInternational Conference on Freshwater Resources1 is to develop and disseminate pragmatic solu-tions and strategies to overcome still existing implementation obstacles.

This paper reviews current international conventions, agreements and declarations related to the sus-tainable use of freshwater ecosystems and freshwater biodiversity. Our primary objective is to stimu-late discussions on practical experiences and challenges in freshwater ecosystem management.Since the topic of freshwater biodiversity is rather complex and ideas of appropriate managementtools are manifold this paper is far from being comprehensive. However, the paper highlights someprinciple areas of concern taking due consideration of the challenges that people face who areengaged in water management.

1 Hosted by the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany in December 2001 in Bonn.

Contents1 Development of Global Freshwater Biodiversity and the Need for Action ......... 1

2 Global Responses to the Loss of Freshwater Biodiversity.................................. 4

2.1 Increasing international consensus on management principles:Agenda 21, water chapter ................................................................................................... 4

2.2 Convention on International Watercourses: An appropriate frameworkfor the protection of freshwater ecosystems? ..................................................................... 5

2.3 The Rio Conventions and the protection of freshwater ecosystems................................... 7

2.4 Interaction of global agreements....................................................................................... 10

3 The Principles of Ecosystem Management ...................................................... 13

4 Ecosystem Management in Practice ................................................................ 17

4.1 International co-operation at transboundary freshwater ecosystems ............................... 17

4.2 National institutions and ecosystem management............................................................ 20

4.3 The role of incentives in ecosystem management ............................................................ 24

4.4 Key lessons learned .......................................................................................................... 29

5 Challenges ....................................................................................................... 31

References

Annex

FiguresTab. 1: Global freshwater biodiversity "hot spots": Freshwater fish species .......................................... 3

Fig. 1: Interaction of global agreements............................................................................................... 11

Box 1: The ecosystem approach ......................................................................................................... 13

Box 2: The 12 Malawi Principles .......................................................................................................... 14

Box 3: The Great Lakes experience in ecosystem management ........................................................ 18

Box 4: Ecosystem-orientated management in South Africa................................................................. 20

Box 5: The Australia’s Murray-Darling river basin ............................................................................... 21

Box 6: Economic benefits of freshwater ecosystems........................................................................... 25

Box 7: Types of incentives in ecosystem management ....................................................................... 27

Box 8: Acquisition of in-stream flow rights ........................................................................................... 28

Fig. 2: Creating an enabling environment in freshwater ecosystems management ............................ 29

List of Abbreviations

CBD UN Convention on Biological Diversity

COP Conference of Parties

CSD Commission on Sustainable Development

FAO Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations

ICPR International Commission for the Protection of the Rhine

IUCN The World Conservation Union – International Union for Conservation of Nature

and Natural Resources

SBSTTA Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice

SEA Strategic Environmental Assessment

TBCAs Transboundary Conservation Areas

UNCCD UN Convention to Combat Desertification

UNFCCC UN Framework Convention on Climate Change

Development of Global Freshwater Biodiversity and the Need for Action

- 1 -

1 Development of Global Freshwater Biodiversity and the Needfor Action

In the past, human-induced pressures on freshwater ecosystems2 were rarely significant andmostly of a local nature. In general, the resilience of freshwater ecosystems was sufficient to recoverfrom such stress caused by human intrusion. But this situation has fundamentally changed in the lastdecades. In the past fifty years, for example, rapid population growth in conjunction with technologicaladvances, the expansion of irrigated land, the spread of high-input agriculture, deforestation, modifiedland-use pattern, and changing consumer behaviour have had an ever-greater impact on freshwaterecosystems. Other human activities disrupt the dynamic hydrological regime of ecosystems. Dams, forexample, directly and indirectly influence the ecological integrity of downstream freshwater ecosys-tems and might contribute significantly to the loss of biodiversity in certain areas (see Mc Allister et al.,2000). Further, human-induced emissions of greenhouse gases have apparently contributed to globalclimate change affecting freshwater ecosystem integrity in many regions of the world. In general,human-induced impacts on water quantity, quality and flow have caused environmental degradation,destruction of natural habitats and loss of their ecological functions. Indirect landscape and directwaterscape changes have had important impacts including:

- levelling of seasonal flow patterns and reduction of river flow volume,

- blockage of access of species to river segments,

- input of organic and

- toxic matter,

- increased nutrient levels,

- turbidity and sediments.

However, water experts are used to tackling water pollution and supply and have been (partly) suc-cessful in doing so. Today, in the developed world pollution from industrial waste and domestic sew-age is decreasing while pollution from non-point sources is rather on the increase. In general, inEurope and North America, pollution, acidification, and the physical modification of streams have hadthe greatest impact on the biodiversity of freshwater ecosystems. In the developing world, collectionand adequate treatment of domestic sewages, and industrial pollution still is a major problem, espe-cially in rapidly growing urban areas. Whereas the public awareness regarding the pollution of fresh-water resources has grown, other factors threatening freshwater ecosystems, especially those relatingto the interaction of water and land-use management or the impacts of non-native species, havereceived much less attention.

While the state of global freshwater biodiversity is far from being fully explored from a scientific point ofview, there are clear indications that freshwater ecosystems experience a significant loss of theirbiological diversity due to various human activities. Available data suggest that around 30% of thefish species are threatened, mostly because of habitat destruction. The introduction of alien species,pollution, and overexploitation – between 1961 and 1996 there was a five-fold increase in the world-wide freshwater fish catch – are also important factors. In Europe 42% of freshwater fish are threat-ened, in Iran 22%, and in South Africa 63% (Moyle/Leidy, 1992). The proportion of threatened speciesof freshwater mammals is about 65%, those of the world’s amphibians approximately 25%. Equally,many birds and mammals depending on freshwater have lost their main breeding and feeding areas 2 It is not an easy task to define precisely the term “freshwater ecosystem”. For our purposes freshwater ecosys-tems encompass all freshwater bodies and all wetlands which depend on the presence of freshwater, either at thesurface or within the root zone.


- 2 -

due to the alteration of freshwater ecosystems. Furthermore, according to recent estimations earthhas lost about 50% of its original wetlands in the last century (McCartney, 2000) . In general, it hasbeen shown that freshwater biodiversity is more threatened than terrestrial ecosystems’ biodiversity –even more than the much publicised plight of the world's forests (WWF, 1999).

In recent years, attitudes towards the integration of nature protection aspects in water policy havechanged as biodiversity loss of freshwater is increasingly perceived as a key challenge for water man-agement practices in many countries. This can be traced back at least to two reasons: First, the rec-ognition that the ongoing alteration of "natural” freshwater ecosystems is not a sustainable option inthe long term. Second, the insight that less modified freshwater ecosystems and the preservation offreshwater biodiversity provides significant economic and social benefits to society. To mention oneexample, floods have been regarded by land-use planners and water experts as a waste and a threatto human economic activities. During the last two decades it is increasingly recognised that in manycases floods are highly productive in agricultural terms; ensure regular recharge of groundwateraquifers; have valuable ecological functions in terms of biodiversity protection and sometimesimportant pay-offs for recreation and tourism.

In general, freshwater ecosystems provide a multitude of goods and services such as water supply,flow regulation, waste assimilation, and regulation of climate and the atmospheric chemicalcomposition. Further, freshwater ecosystems provide essential goods for human well-being, e.g. food,power, and raw material production as well as recreation. In spite of methodical difficulties in economicvaluation, intrinsic values or non-use services such as cultural, aesthetic or scientific values are alsovery important, even if such non-use values might be more relevant in wealthy nations. In particular,biodiversity of ecosystems provide economically important services, especially in the long-term,because loss of diversity decreases the probability of natural recovery of freshwater ecosystems afterhuman-induced or natural disturbances. Therefore, in many cases the preservation of biodiversity willprevent future costs resulting from the degradation of water ecosystems and keep future economicdevelopment options open.

Meanwhile there are many studies which attempt to quantify precisely the economic benefits result-ing from the integrity of freshwater resources: For example, Barbier and Thompson (1998) haveshown that the reduction of inundated areas in the Hadajia-Nguru wetlands (Nigeria) for intensiveagriculture purposes led to net economic losses; the economic returns of an intensive irrigationscheme (Kano River project) had a significantly lesser volume than the calculated economic benefitsof the floodplain, without even taking into account intrinsic values. Sather and Smith (1984) have esti-mated the economic value of flood prevention at US$ 13,500 hectare/year provided by wetlands in thecatchment of the Charles River in Massachusetts. New York City’s investments in the purchase andmanagement of land in its water catchment is a good example of cost-savings due to expansion offreshwater ecosystems for water purification purposes. In this case, New York City could not onlyavoid costs amounting US$ 6,5 billion but was also able to provide new wildlife habitats, other ecologi-cal resources and additional areas for recreation (WRI, 1998).

According to Costanza et al. (1997) global economic benefits of freshwater ecosystems is severaltimes higher per unit area compared to terrestrial ecosystems as forests, grasslands or rangelands.Other scientists have estimated, that the global wetland systems alone are worth some US$4.0 trilliona year!

However, though the recent academic and political consensus at the global level indicates that theeconomic and social benefits of the protection of freshwater ecosystems are increasingly taken intoaccount, more efforts are needed to translate this consensus into actual water management prac-


- 3 -

tices. In general, the present set of regulations and management tools in practice are consideredinadequate.

In addition, it is worth emphasising that priorities in water management in the developed and develo-ping world are rather different. In the developing world the priorities are elementary improvements inhealth, food security and water supply. But there are clear indications that the satisfaction of those ele-mentary needs presupposes the preservation of the integrity of freshwater ecosystems. Therefore, theperception of ecological aspects in water policy in some developing countries as a "northern” topic isat least over-accentuated because in many cases people in rural areas in particular suffer from fresh-water ecosystem degradation.

Table 1: Global freshwater biodiversity "hot spots": Freshwater fish species1

Countries with mostspecies

Number of species Countries with mostspecies per km2

Number of spe-cies/1000 km2

Brazil 3,000 Burundi 8.15Indonesia 1,300 Malawi 3.84China 1,010 Bangladesh 2.00Zaire 962 Malaysia 1.83Peru 855 Sierra Leone 1.63United States 779 Lao P.D.R. 1.48India 748 Cambodia 1.47Thailand 690 Vietnam 1.38Tanzania 682 Thailand 1.35Malaysia 600 Uganda 1.24

1 Only fish species actually recorded are included. World Bank (1998)

Many river basins in the developing world with high biodiversity are vulnerable to future pressures(e.g. the Nile, the Volta, the Irrawaddy and the Mekong) and additional financial resources for devel-oping countries seem to be necessary for the protection of the global biodiversity of freshwaterresources.

In the developed world, the emphasis is more on protecting the remaining natural and semi-naturalfreshwater ecosystems and on restoring degraded ecosystems (e.g. floodplains, wetlands) respective-ly. Equally, although most natural freshwater ecosystems are highly modified, there are many hotspots of freshwater biodiversity in the developed world, such as the Mississippi Basin, and manyother rivers and lakes containing a considerable number of endemic species. In general, despite thedifference in priorities and institutional prerequisites in the developing and the developed world, thegeneral challenge to increase the consideration of biodiversity aspects in water management practicesapplies to both.

Global Responses to the Loss of Freshwater Biodiversity

- 4 -

2 Global Responses to the Loss of Freshwater BiodiversityThe world community has recognised the loss of freshwater biodiversity in the last decade and hasstarted initiatives to tackle the causes of environmental degradation of freshwater ecosystems.Agenda 21, chapter 18, and its follow-up, the three Rio global environmental conventions (biodiversity,climate, desertification), the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands, and the Convention on InternationalWatercourses, have altogether set a new international framework to reverse the trend of ongoing envi-ronmental degradation.

2.1 Increasing international consensus on management principles:Agenda 21, water chapter

Agenda 21, water chapter, requires from the States "to make certain that adequate supplies of waterof good quality are maintained for the entire population of this planet, while preserving the hydrologi-cal, biological and chemical functions of ecosystems, adapting human activities within the capacitylimits of nature (...)”.3 The program area "Protection of water resources, water quality and aquaticecosystems" (c.) in particular mentions the many human and economic uses that disturb aquatic eco-systems and threaten living freshwater resources, e.g. agricultural water resource development pro-jects such as dams, river diversion, water installations and irrigation schemes, and calls - with refe-rence to the Mar del Plata Action Plan (1977) - for evaluating the consequences which the varioususers of water have on the environment, and to protect ecosystems.

Maintaining ecosystem integrity is but one objective of water resource management either innational or transboundary river systems "including living resources, and of effectively protecting themfrom any form of degradation on a drainage basin basis”. The international community by adoptingAgenda 21 has set ambitious targets for the protection of ecosystems:

• To initiate programs for the protection and conservation (...) of these resources on a sustainablebasis;

• To initiate effective water pollution prevention and control programs based on an appropriate mixof pollution reduction-at-source strategies, environmental impact assessments and enforceablestandards for major point-source discharges and high-risk non-point sources (...);

• To establish according to capacities and needs, biological, health, physical and chemical qualitycriteria for all water bodies (...);

• To adopt an integrated approach to environmentally sustainable management of water resources,including the protection of aquatic ecosystems and freshwater living resources;

• To put in place strategies for the environmentally sound management of freshwater and relatedcoastal ecosystems, including consideration of fisheries, aqua-culture, animal grazing, agriculturalactivities and biodiversity.

Agenda 21, water chapter, further recommends a bouquet of activities to protect freshwater livingresources from pollution and degradation, to restore aquatic habitats and ecosystems, and to con-serve and protect "wetlands (owing to their ecological and habitat importance for many species), tak-ing into account social and economic factors; control of noxious aquatic species that may destroysome other water species”.

3 http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/agenda21chapter18.htm


- 5 -

Clearly, Agenda 21, water chapter, is a declaration of intent and uses a more vague language concer-ning particular problems which can be traced back to different perceptions of developed anddeveloping countries of the nature of the environmental problem (Scheumann/Klaphake, 2001).Further progress was made through the adoption of the CSD-6 document "Strategic approaches tofreshwater management” in 1998. Throughout this document, environmental effects of water man-agement are more systematically considered and the linkages of water to biodiversity and land degra-dation are explicitly mentioned.

Thus, while having adopted Agenda 21, water chapter, and subsequent international agreements,states have already found a more or less adequate language for biodiversity-related aspects of watermanagement. But due to its political character, one important shortcoming of the Agenda 21 is thefar-reaching neglect of biodiversity aspects in the management of transboundary water resources.Therefore, the water chapter provides a useful framework for reforms leading water managementtowards sustainability in general terms, but it does not constitute a regulatory framework for interactionof riparian states concerning preservation of freshwater biodiversity.

2.2 Convention on International Watercourses: An appropriate framework forthe protection of freshwater ecosystems?

The Convention on the Law of the Non-navigational Uses of International Watercourses (1997) is thebasic document of international water law that guides riparian States for the peaceful regulation ofcompeting demands such as flood control, water diversion for irrigation, generation of hydro power,pollution control, and for freshwater ecosystem protection.4 During the course of negotiation it hasbeen argued that the Convention has not successfully addressed recent environmental challengesand would not take due consideration of protecting and preserving transboundary rivers’ ecosystems,flora and fauna in adjacent areas, estuaries and wetlands.

Whether the Convention is conducive towards the protection of freshwater ecosystems can be judgedfrom the physical scope of its applicability, the relation between the principles of equitable, reasonableutilisation and of no-harm and its environmental provisions.

The "international watercourse" concept

The geographical and hydrological area within which the Convention is operative is defined by theterm "international watercourse", i.e. "a system of surface waters and ground waters constituting byvirtue of their physical relationship a unitary whole and normally flowing into a common terminus; (...)parts of which are situated in different States” (Article 2(a), (b)). In making an "international water-course" the point of reference, the Convention has replaced the early "drainage basin" concept of theHelsinki Rules and that of a "shared natural resource" which was introduced at an early stage of nego-tiations. The "shared natural resource" concept would have meant that States do not have exclusivecontrol over their portions of a river and would have required a certain degree of internationalisation5.The geographical implications of the term "drainage basin" too, led to abandon it, because Statesfeared it could open the way to undue restrictions on their sovereignty over water resources and sur-rounding land areas.

Only the "international watercourse" approach has found sufficient support from within the interna-tional community. However, the concept was broadened by the above mentioned definition extending

4 To date only 8 States have ratified the Convention, but the great number of affirmative votes (103) indicatesbroad agreement.5 Still different from ‚common property".


- 6 -

a watercourse beyond the main surface water channel of a river, but still lacks mentioning the inter-connectedness between e.g. land and water, and ecosystems concern is limited to the watercourseitself (Brunnee/Toope, 1994).

Equitable, reasonable utilisation (Article 5) and the no-harm principle (Article 7)These Articles are the cornerstone of the Convention, and debates centred on whether the no-harmrule or the principle of equitable, reasonable utilisation should be superior. While, as a rule, upperriparian countries have favoured the principle of equitable and reasonable utilisation, downstream andenvironmentally concerned countries have emphasised that "equitable utilisation" should not serve tojustify environmental damage. However, even if the no-harm rule would have gained precedence,which it has not, the Convention does not prohibit harm in absolute terms, but rather relies on a duediligence obligation, and puts a ban on activities causing significant harm. While some transboundaryimpacts may not negatively affect downstream human and economic uses, it may impact negativelyon ecosystems. A stricter ecosystem orientation requires setting e.g. emission standards, limit valuesor any other qualification pursuant to ecological rather than only human or economic factors(Brunnee/Toope, 1994) .

Environmental provisionsPart IV provides for protecting and preserving the ecosystems6 of international watercourses. Althoughnot defined in the Convention, the commentary considers that the term ecosystem refers to ecologicalunits consisting of living and non-living components that are interdependent and function as a com-munity (McCaffrey, 1991). Consequently, the environmental provisions call for the preventing, reduc-ing and controlling of pollution in cases that may cause significant harm to other watercourse States ortheir environment, including harm to human health or safety, to the use of waters for any beneficialpurpose or to the living resources of the watercourse. Watercourse States shall take steps to harmo-nise their policies in this connection (Article 21(2)). The Convention indicates an increased emphasison co-operation which has led to the creation of a list of potential pollution abatement measures thatStates, at the request of one of them, could consult on. It recommends to set joint water quality objec-tives and criteria; to establish techniques and practices that address pollution from point and non-pointsources; to establish a list of substances, the introduction of which into international watercourses is tobe prohibited, limited, investigated and monitored (Article 21(3)).

More importantly, Article 21(2) shows that the obligation for prevention, reducing and controllingthe pollution of international watercourses does not depend on whether significant harm is caused toco-riparian states, but that protective measures may be necessary within the States’ territories even ifno pollution is caused to actual or potential uses of States. A specific obligation of Article 22 is thatStates are required to do all that can be reasonably expected to prevent the introduction of alien andnew species as foreign organisms can upset the ecological balance resulting in the acceleration ofeutrophication, elimination of other species, disruption of food webs, transmission of diseases, clog-ging of intakes etc. In addition, the Convention mentions the protection and preservation of the marineenvironment (Article 23) “since much of the most serious damage (...) is caused by pollution from land-based sources, including rivers” (McCaffrey, 1991). Article 27 calls upon riparian States for “Preven-tion and Mitigation of Harmful Conditions” which requires that States take reasonable measures forcontrolling, among other things, deforestation to prevent downstream floods, siltation, erosion, saltwater intrusion, drought or desertification. Concerning planned measures, there is no obligation for an

6 This term was preferred over the broader term ‚environment".


- 7 -

Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), and states are only obliged to provide the result of any EIA ifconducted; this also applies to the impact of planned measures on ecosystems.

The environmental provisions, although very general, have generated a potentially powerful man-date, and the Convention expresses strong concerns and common interests of states in environmentalprotection (McCaffrey/Sinjela, 1998). Being a framework convention, States are free to deviate from itand may explicitly consider the interconnectedness between land and water, impacts from land use onwater, the protection or preservation of specific freshwater ecosystems, and formulate thresholds pur-suant to ecological factors. It may be necessary to consider enforceable rights not only where envi-ronmental harm affects another watercourse state as envisaged in Article 7 and 21(2).7 A particularchallenge vis a vis ever increasing human and economic uses is the release of a minimum in-streamflow of good quality water to maintain a river’s biological, chemical and physical characteristics.

2.3 The Rio Conventions and the protection of freshwater ecosystemsChapter 18 of Agenda 21 and the Convention on International Watercourses constitute a commitmentand framework on behalf of countries to begin reversing the course of freshwater biodiversity’s loss.When taken together with the three Rio Conventions, a transition to conservation and sustainable useof freshwater ecosystems can be followed.

The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)

The CBD focuses on the integration of biodiversity concerns into development decision-makingthrough the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity and the fair and equitable sharingof benefits stemming from their utilisation. Albeit there are no explicit obligations in the conventionrelating to freshwater biodiversity, the CBD started action concerning inland waters at the occasionof the second Conference of Parties (COP-2) and adopted inland waters as a thematic area at COP-4(Bratislava, 1998) (see Annex 1 for a detailed list of decisions and documents). The relevant workprogram on biological diversity of inland water ecosystems promotes integrated water management;appropriate technologies; research, monitoring and assessment; and co-operation with other conven-tions and organisations.

In management terms, work plans and programs adopted by the COP emphasise the need for inte-grated watershed, catchment and river basin management based on an ecosystem approach (seechapter 4) including transboundary water resources. Particularly the interrelation between water ma-nagement and agriculture was stressed, as well as the need to use the ecosystem approach in allsectors which have an impact on inland water biodiversity. Further, the necessity to improve knowl-edge on the pressure to and status of biodiversity of inland waters is stressed. It recommends to itsparties to work out national reports on the status of freshwater biodiversity and plans for action, and toapply various measures, such as legal, administrative and incentive measures, strategic environ-mental impact assessment (SEA), awareness raising concerning alien species, genotypes and geneti-cally modified organisms, transboundary co-operation and involvement of local and indigenous com-munities.

However, contribution of the CBD to further improvements in ecological-orientated water manage-ment is manifold. In particular, results of the ongoing attempts to improve knowledge on the ecologicalstatus of water resources and causes of the biodiversity’s loss will be an important step towards thedevelopment of adequate counter-measures. Unfortunately, experiences in practical implementation is

7 Brunnee and Toope (1994), p. 65.


- 8 -

mixed and progress at the national level is slow (see UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/5/6). For example, knowl-edge on status and trends of inland water biodiversity is still limited, due to the fact, amongst otherthings, that parties only slowly implement measures to assess, monitor and report. Case studies sub-mitted by the parties are considered insufficient in number and detail. Further, concrete action is stillsmall, despite the launching of a River Basin Initiative (RBI) aimed at the establishment of “a networkto link and support activities and projects in which the principles and the practice of integrated man-agement of biodiversity, wetlands, and river basins/catchments/watersheds will be demonstrated” (seeUNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/5/INF/12). To progress the development of the initiative, the RBI has recentlybeen awarded a UNDP project development fund grant. Initial work is under way and as a first step a“Country Needs Assessment” will be undertaken. But since the RBI was started only in 2000, resultsyet can not be evaluated. In general, since CBD’s activities in the area of inland waters started ratherlate, the impact on practices in water management can not be assessed. However, there is a broadpolitical consensus, and the measures that have so far been taken will lead to an enhanced diffusionof knowledge and good practices.

Further, the CBD started a fruitful co-operation with the Ramsar Convention. In accordance withrecent CBD decisions, the CBD’s Subsidiary Body on Technical and Technological Advice (SBSTTA)was instructed to work with the Ramsar Scientific and Technical Review Panel to adress issues ofcommon importance (e.g. impact assessment, inland waters, alien species). Meanwhile “Joint WorkPlans” were adopted and the Ramsar Bureau has proved to be a strong political actor (seeUNEP/CBD/COP/5/23, decision V/2)8. The Ramsar Convention (adopted on 2 February 1971 in theIranian city of Ramsar) or “Convention on Wetlands” was the first modern global intergovernmentaltreaty on conservation and wise use of natural resources. Although its provisions are relativelystraightforward compared to other international agreements, its focus in the beginning was rather nar-row. But over the years, however, the Ramsar Convention has broadened its scope to cover allaspects of wetland conservation and wise use, recognising wetlands as ecosystems that are ex-tremely important for biodiversity conservation in general and for the well-being of human communi-ties. One of its key obligation is to include wetland conservation in national land-use and water plan-ning to promote "the wise use of wetlands in their territory”. The principle of “wise use” is an importantlink to both the CBD and the Agenda 21. In recent years, the Ramsar Convention has adopted variousdocuments and guidelines for taking due consideration to wetland conservation in water management.Recently, Ramsar is a pioneer in efforts to broaden co-operation and to harmonise work of thedifferent Multilateral Environmental Agreements (MEAs). Beyond the co-operation with the CBD, theRamsar Bureau has begun to develop direct co-operative efforts with the secretariats of other globaltreaties.

The UN Framework Convention on Climate ChangeGlobal climate change will impact on the world’s freshwater resources: With increasing global andregional temperatures, rainfall patterns will change throughout the world, and increases in evaporationrates, changes in the variability of water availability and altered demands for freshwater will occur.Increasing temperatures globally are likely to result in a warming of water temperatures in lakes andrivers. While many uncertainties remain about the precise details of the regional impact on waterresources, it is increasingly apparent that biodiversity will be threatened (CBD, 2000).

8 The Joint Work Plan organises collaboration and co-operation between the Ramsar Convention and the CBD inthe areas of inland water ecosystems, marine and coastal biodiversity, impact assessment and incentive measu-res. It directs the expert bodies of the Conventions to exchange information, as well as co-operate and co-ordi-nate activities, where appropriate.


- 9 -

Biodiversity in freshwater systems is distributed in a fundamentally different pattern from that in marineor terrestrial systems. Freshwater habitats are relatively discontinuous, and many freshwater speciesdo not disperse easily across the land barriers that separate river basins. This has three importantimplications:

• Freshwater species must survive climatic and ecological changes in place;

• freshwater biodiversity is usually highly localised, and even small lake or stream systems oftenharbour unique, locally evolved forms of life; and

• freshwater species diversity is high even in regions where the number of species at any givensite is low, since species differ between one site and the next.

Because climate change is expected to occur very fast in comparison to the ability of freshwater eco-systems to adopt to it, a disequilibrium between species distribution will occur. This suggests that cli-mate change would not only have a direct impact on the distribution of species, but that species couldbecome extinct leading to a loss of biodiversity.

In consequence, even if the ability of freshwater ecosystems to adapt to climate change highlydepends on the rate and extent of expected changes, ecological goals of water management can nolonger be achieved without taking climate change into account. Climate change represents an additio-nal threat to freshwater ecosystems and requires specific measures in water policy and concertedactions between international water policy and climate policy for common action.

However, functional links between conservation of freshwater ecosystems and climate change are ontwo sides because climate change is also fostered by changes in freshwater ecosystems. Freshwaterecosystems provide services like the regulation of climate. Further, wetlands are considered signifi-cant carbon stores and carbon dioxide sinks. Hence, existing and additional wetlands might serveto stabilise the world’s climate. But since wetlands also are sources of greenhouse gases like methaneand nitrous oxide, the net climate effects of the loss of wetlands or their restoration is still scientificallyand politically controversial. Recent studies suggest that the net effect still is not fully exploited andobviously depends on the type of wetland, location, alternatives in land-use and other factors (IPPC,2001). However, since they are the world’s largest carbon sink, in particular peatlands are consideredvery important and are the subject to controversial debates on carbon sinks under the Kyoto Protocol.9

There are continuing efforts to enhance co-operation between the CBD, the UN Framework Conven-tion on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and international water policy (see CBD, 2000). The FrameworkConvention and its Kyoto Protocol are emerging as critical mechanisms to foster wise use of carbonresources and to implement a global trading mechanism for carbon credits. The inclusion of land use,land-use change, and forestry activities in accounting for net emissions under the Kyoto Protocol(Art. 3.3, 3.4) and in possible project activities carried out under the mechanisms of Article 6 and 12could promote conservation and sustainable use of certain freshwater ecosystems. Peatlands still areexcluded from the Kyoto Protocol, although its Article 3 (4) would provide for an agreement makingland-use changes relating to wetlands part of the commitment pertaining to greenhouse gas emission(see WBGU, 1998; IPCC, 2001). However, joint initiatives among the UNFCCC, the Ramsar Conven-tion and the CBD provide important opportunities that are widely recognised but not yet fully realised.

The Convention to Combat DesertificationWhile both the CBD and the UNFCCC clearly have linkages to floods, droughts, aquatic ecosystems,and carbon sinks, the UN Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD) has water and land man-agement at its heart since its provisions are aimed at combating desertification and mitigating the 9 Statement of the 13th Global Biodiversty Forum supporting the Ramsar/CBD work program to Ramsar COP-7,San José, Costa Rica, 7-9 May 1999.


- 10 -

effects of drought and desertification. Various assessments continued to point out that desertificationresults from complex interactions among physical, chemical, biological, socio-economic and politicalfactors, that are of local, national, and global origin (UNEP, 1991).

The protection and sustainable use of remaining freshwater ecosystems in regions which are affectedby drought is certainly a key feature of strategies to combat or mitigate desertification. In manyareas, implementation measures in water management focus their efforts on the protection of aquifers.Putting a light on the Convention, there are many objectives, principles and measures in common withthe CBD and subsequent arrangements:

• Objective: Long-term integrated strategies that focus, inter alia, on improved rehabilitation, con-servation and sustainable management of land and water resources.

• Principles: Integrated approach; establishment of a better understanding of the nature and valueof land and scarce water resources

• Measures: Sustainable management of natural resources; sustainable agricultural practices.

2.4 Interaction of global agreementsConsidering functions and services of freshwater ecosystems as well as threats to their biodiversity,functional links with other key issues of international environmental policy are obvious. Rising aware-ness of these interdependencies have fostered increasing co-operation between the related conven-tions already adopted. The topic “biodiversity of freshwater” is tackled by a multitude of declarations,conventions and international organisations, those that have been mentioned and others both insideand outside the UN system (inter alia FAO, World Bank, Bonn Convention, Global Water Partnership,World Water Council, Wetlands International, IUCN). In particular, with the CBD, the Ramsar Conven-tion, the UNFCCC and the Convention on International Watercourses, there is an emerging globalframework for action aiming to preserve the integrity of freshwater ecosystems. However, it is worthemphasising the different character and objectives of these conventions though:

The character of the three Rio conventions is not comparable to that of the Watercourse Convention.The Rio conventions have a process character and are endorsed by an institutionalised follow-up(conferences of parties, secretary and boards, scientific support etc.) and a financial mechanism(Global Environmental Facility). The Watercourse Convention, that was adopted after a long-lastingand controversial negotiation process and is still not ratified, is a legal framework for co-operation ofriparian states. This is probably due to the fact that agreements are subject to regional negotiations.Finally, the Agenda 21, water chapter, is a political declaration what means inherent limits in effective-ness.

The CBD’s and Ramsar Convention’s subject is the preservation and sustainable use of freshwaterbiodiversity and wetlands respectively. In the negotiation process of the UNFCCC preservation ofwetlands only plays a minor part, albeit political controversial. Further, the subject of discussion is notbiodiversity of wetlands but their net climate effect. There might be concrete cases where maximisingclimate effect and preservation of biodiversity are conflicting goals though. The Desertification Con-vention also does not directly tackle freshwater biodiversity, even if the preservation of freshwaterecosystems is in many affected regions a key prerequisite to reach its objectives. In turn, the Water-course Convention focuses more on water as a resource subject to beneficial human and economicuses, and on the establishment of rules and procedures to balance competing interests of riparianstates. However, both the principle of "sustainable utilisation" and the environmental provisions pro-


- 11 -

vide a potentially powerful mandate for taking due consideration of watercourses' ecosystem protec-tion.10

Further, State sovereignty over natural resources is still the ground upon which the WatercourseConvention is build while the preamble to the CBD introduces a somewhat different concept that limitsStates sovereignty when it states that the “conservation of biological diversity is a concern of human-kind”. The CBD concept does not affect the “ownership” dimension of States over their resources butthe “use” dimension. The implications, however, are far reaching if rights were assigned to non-ripar-ian States to the degree that is necessary to address the “common concern”. To prevent globalinterference in national and regional water management, the concept may be modified into “regionalcommon concern”. Rights generate obligations that might be differentiated according to economicstrength of co-riparian and non-riparian States, and financial transfer might be considered if Stateslack adequate resources (Biermann, 1997).

Fig. 1: Interaction of global agreements

However, at the global level there is a fruitful co-operation of the CBD and the Ramsar Convention tofoster the topic “freshwater biodivesity”. The effectiveness of their work and the advances reached(e.g. work program, River Basin Initiative, indicators) can be traced back to the fact that negotiationstake place in a de-politicised forum of experts. Even if progress in implementation is rather slow andtranslating the holistic approach of the CBD into concrete action in the light of incomplete scientificknowledge has proved difficult, there is now a stronger focus on implementation. Further, CBD andRamsar have initiated a co-operation with many other actors relevant in international water policy(World Commission on Dams, World Bank, IUCN) and the conventions mentioned. Albeit not perfect, 10 See the judgement of the International Court of Justice in the Gabcikovo case.

Biodiversity of freshwater ecosystemsBiodiversity of freshwater ecosystems

United Nations FrameworkUnited Nations FrameworkConvention on ClimateConvention on Climate

ChangeChange• carbon sinks• altered global water cycle

Ramsar Convention onRamsar Convention onWetlandsWetlands

• wetlands• ‘wise use‘

Convention onConvention onBiological DiversityBiological Diversity

• ecosystem approach• inland waters

United NationsUnited NationsConvention to CombatConvention to Combat

DesertificationDesertification• integrated water and land use management

AGENDA 21AGENDA 21

• water chapter• CSD-6: „Strategic approaches to freshwater management“

Further agreements andFurther agreements andorganisations:organisations:

• Bonn-Convention• Global Water Partnership• World Water Council etc.

Convention on the Law ofConvention on the Law ofthe Non-navigational Usesthe Non-navigational Usesof Internat. Watercoursesof Internat. Watercourses

• equitable utilisation• no-harm principle• protection of watercourses‘ ecosystems


- 12 -

this emerging network has intensified scientific and political discussion and can potentially lead tomore coherent actions on the global level. Further, this network favours a convincing policy style ofmutual learning, diffusion of best practice, monitoring and reporting.

There are many complaints concerning confusion and frictional losses due to the multitude of actorsand conventions in international environmental policy, but the co-operation in the field of biodiversity-orientated water policy proves that these institutional obstacles can partly be overcome. For example,the Joint CBD-Ramsar Work Plans have become model by which other conventions are seeking todevelop complementary working arrangements with the CBD. In general, the weakness of interna-tional policy relating to freshwater biodiversity is less the result of lacking global co-operation but canrather be traced back to less political support at the regional and national level.

The Principles of Ecosystem Management

- 13 -

3 The Principles of Ecosystem ManagementEven if some synergies between the different international arrangements and processes relating to thebiodiversity of freshwater resources still deserve more attention and none of the international treatiesand institutions already deals fully with freshwater ecosystems, there is an increasing consensus onthe highest political levels to manage water, water-related processes, and ecosystems in a sustainablemanner. However, at the level of implementation the value of ecosystems is rarely taken fully intoaccount. In order to close this implementation gap the contracting parties of the CBD and other advo-cates have proposed a so-called "ecosystem-based approach"11 as an appropriate way of managingnatural resources (see box 1).

BBOOXX 11:: TTHHEE EECCOOSSYYSSTTEEMM AAPPPPRROOAACCHHThe ecosystem approach is a strategy for the integrated management of land, water and living resourcesthat promotes conservation and sustainable use in an equitable way. The term ecosystem is used more asa mental construct suggesting complexity and systems interaction rather than a geographic entity. Anemphasis on the complexity of system-wide interactions highlights scientific uncertainty and results in theneed to deal with this uncertainty explicitly by acting conservatively and managing adaptively: setting acourse of action based on a set of hypotheses, monitoring what happens, and re-evaluating the directionon what one learns. At its most fundamental level, an ecosystem approach maintains diversity as a meansof building resilience against catastrophic events in biological, economic, organisational, and political sys-tems (Yaffee, 1999).

At its second meeting in 1995, the Conference of the Parties of the CBD adopted the ecosystem approachas the primary framework for action, and subsequently has referred to the ecosystem approach in theelaboration and implementation of the various thematic and cross-cutting issues work programs under theConvention (Decision II/8). The issues concerned include:

• biological diversity of inland water ecosystems (recommendations III/1 and decision IV/4);

• marine and coastal biological diversity (decision II/10 and IV/5);

• agricultural biological diversity (decision II/16 and III/11);

• forest biological diversity (decisions I/8, II/9, III/12 and IV/7);

• indicators of biological diversity (decision IV/1) and

• incentive measures (decision IV/10 A) and environmental impact assessment (decision IV/10 C).

By recommending the ecosystem approach as the guiding concept, in May 2000 the fifth COP took a nextstep towards its practical verification in the frame of the CBD (decision V/6).

Concerning inland water ecosystems a work program was adopted by the COP (decision IV4) which high-lights the importance of designing integrated watershed, catchment and river basin management strate-gies. Particularly the interrelation between water management and agriculture was stressed, as well as theneed to use the ecosystem approach in all sectors which have an impact on inland water biodiversity.

The ecosystem approach was initially developed as a research paradigm and not intended to serve asthe basis for resource management (Maltby et al., 1999). With the political application of the notion"ecosystem-based approach" advocates intended to find an adequate language in response to theshortcomings of classical nature conservation approaches. Although classical nature conservation(e.g. designation of protected areas) can be considered successful in many regions and also is animportant module in ecosystem management, its recognition of human needs and other legitimatesectoral interests was rather insufficient. It did not put enough emphasis on the biological diversity

11 Despite some subtle differences we use the notions „ecosystem-based approch“, „ecosystem approach“, and„ecosystem management“ as synominous terms.


- 14 -

outside protected areas. Furthermore, the primary method of protecting freshwater biodiversity hasbeen to designate particular species as threatened or endangered making them subject to nationalrecovery programs or international protection. Unfortunately, this approach is failing and itdemonstrates the need for a more holistic approach in order to overcome the shortcomings oftraditional efforts in nature protection policy. In the United States, for example, no aquatic species hasever graduated from the government's endangered species list, but 10 species of fish have beenremoved due to extinction. Equally, ecosystem management responds to the obvious shortcomings ofclassical single-resource approaches focused on exploitation.

BBOOXX 22:: TTHHEE 1122 MMAALLAAWWII PPRRIINNCCIIPPLLEESS1. Management objectives are a matter of societal choice

2. Management should be decentralised to the lowest appropriate level

3. Ecosystem managers should consider the effects (actual or potential) of their activities on adjacentand other ecosystems.

4. Recognising potential gains from management there is a need to understand the ecosystem in aneconomic context. Any ecosystem management program should: (a) reduce those market distortions that adversely affect biological diversity;(b) align incentives to promote sustainable use; (c) internalise costs and benefits in the given ecosystem to the extent feasible.

5. A key feature of the ecosystem approach includes conservation of ecosystem structure and functio-ning.

6. Ecosystems must be managed within the limits to their functioning.

7. The ecosystem approach should be undertaken at the appropriate scale.

8. Recognising the varying temporal scales and lag effects which characterise ecosystem processes,objectives for ecosystem management should be set for the long term.

9. Management must recognise that change is inevitable.

10. The ecosystem approach should seek the appropriate balance between conservation and use ofbiological diversity.

11. The ecosystem approach should consider all forms of relevant information, including scientific andindigenous and local knowledge, innovations and practices.

12. The ecosystem approach should involve all relevant sectors of society and scientific disciplines.

These principles were agreed at CBD's COP-5 under decision V/6 with minor modifications.

Therefore, ecosystem management is proposed as a modern way of managing natural systems andgenerally intends to use natural resources within their natural limits. However, although there are stillsome controversies on how to translate ecosystem management into concrete management terms,parties of the CBD have already agreed on basic principles to guide the modus operandi (see box 2).A key point is that the ecosystem approach is a holistic process for integrating and delivering in a bal-anced way the three objectives of the CBD: conservation and sustainable use of biological diversitycombined with equitable sharing of biodiversity’s benefits. In particular, the agreed principles of theecosystem approach stress the importance of

- societal choice concerning management objectives,

- the "economics" of biodiversity (internalisation of costs and benefits, balance between conservationand use),

- adequate institutional structures (decentralisation, management at the appropriate scale),


- 15 -

- adaptive management which enables policy makers to anticipate and cater for the natural dyna-mics of ecosystems.

- consideration not only of scientific knowledge but also of indigenous and local knowledge.

In order to translate this rather abstract principles into guidelines for water management it is firstnecessary to define the appropriate management level to meet the general objectives. While the citedprinciples stress the importance of decentralised approaches in general terms, the idea of river basinmanagement is considered an adequate starting point for the implementation of the ecosystemapproach in water management. The reasoning is that river basins offer many advantages for strategicplanning and that they represent the most appropriate geomorphologic units on which to base ecosys-tem management practices. However, concerning ecosystem protection there are some limits: ground-water catchments only rarely match with surface water catchments; water quality and quantity insidethe river basin interacts with other influences outside the catchments boundaries; estuarine ecosys-tems, for example, can only be sufficiently protected by taking into account the interaction of freshwa-ter and tidal currents. Therefore, river basin management should not be perceived as a panacea but itdoes provide a sound geographical basis for implementation. Briefly, ecosystem management shouldbe an integral component of comprehensive river basin management strategies.

Hence, the explicit switch to ecosystem management leads to an accentuation of the main focus inwater management because ecosystem management demands:

- a broader perspective: whole ecosystems and the full range of services, no sectoral view;

- efforts to balance natural ecosystem robustness and human-induced alterations;

- collation of information on the status of, and threats to, the biodiversity of the freshwaterecosystem concerned (including impacts of the introduction of alien species);

- explicit consideration of land-use, in-stream flow and water temperature for maintaining ecologicalfunctions;

- a long-term perspective;

- consideration of the full economic value of freshwater ecosystems (incl. its biodiversity);

- recognition of ecosystem’s change as a matter of fact (i.e. restoration of damaged or destroyedecosystems will never lead to the “pristine” state; adaptive management to deal with uncertain-ties);

- integration of scientific knowledge and modern management tools (Decision Support Systems,Geographical Information Systems etc.) into decision-making;

- identification of win-win options between protection and use of freshwater ecosystems: “use them,but don’t lose them”.

- consideration of the full range of policy instruments applicable in water management (economicand legal instrument, co-operation etc.);

As most of these elements are widely agreed upon the rhetoric of international water policy, the nextsteps must include attempts to tackle the implications of the ecosystem approach in practice. For ex-ample, only little is known about the value of ecosystem management in political terms for at leasttwo reasons:

1. The concept appears highly demanding because much information – sometimes on "invisible"relationships between human-induced pressures and natural reactions – is needed, and effectivevertical and horizontal co-ordination of sector policies and planning instruments has to take


- 16 -

place. Today, even in wealthy nations a lack of integration across sectors in managing waterresources can be identified (OECD, 1998).

2. It is necessary to decide which services of water receive priority, and how the costs and benefitsare to be distributed. The developed world, for example, can “afford” to stop or to remove devel-opment projects in favour of ecosystem integrity (e.g. Great Whale Hydropower Project in Canada,Edwards Dam in the US) and to use sometimes generous subsidies to compensate land ownersfor restricting their use of the lands (OECD, 1999). The restoration of river ecosystems in thedeveloped world also is an example for costs emerging in the short terms. Although long-termeconomic benefits are regularly provided, political decision are often dominated by short-termconsiderations.

Ecosystem Management in Practice

- 17 -

4 Ecosystem Management in PracticeIn order to discuss shortcomings of current approaches to water management from an ecosystemperspective and to identify cases of “good practice” which could offer a guide, we stress three keydimensions of ecosystem-based water management, i.e. the international, the institutional, and theinstrumental dimension.

4.1 International co-operation at transboundary freshwater ecosystemsSince many basins cross political borders, international co-operation is of prime importance for theimplementation of an ecosystem approach in river basin management. In general, water sharingbetween riparian states of the Ganges, Nile, Jordan or Mekong, for example, is an important politicaland strategic issue for the states concerned. Further, it is claimed that diverging interests of stateswould not only be obstacles for the integrated management of transboundary rivers, but would also besource of conflicts in the next years. Although this pessimistic view appears foreshortened, divergingpolitical and strategic interests of riparian states might prevent common action to ecosystem man-agement at transboundary rivers and lakes.

However, there are many examples of co-operation between riparian states in the allocation and con-trol of freshwater resources. The United Nations has compiled a list of 3,707 agreements. Issues ofquantity and quality of water resources have been resolved in some, but not all, cases. In general, co-operation is confined to a limited scope (e.g. electricity, fishery, quantity and quality of water) whilethe governments involved only rarely commit themselves to an holistic ecosystem approach. Further,Wallensteen and Swain (1996) suggest that many of the bilateral agreements that have been deve-loped in the past are under threat because of the increasing demands placed upon water resourcesthrough growing populations and the need for food security. Tensions over water exist in river basinsand there are few water-sharing agreements that includes all riparians or ensures full protection of thefreshwater ecosystems. Thus, obstacles for the implementation of ecosystem management are obvi-ous and stem from a lack of common understanding, adequate institutions (international, national andsub-national), and mechanisms for conflict solution and sharing of costs and benefits.

Yet, there are some encouraging examples that demonstrate potential gains. The experience of Cana-da and the United States in governing the Great Lakes ecosystem is often cited as a model (Botts/Muldoon, 1996). Although the success story “Great Lakes” is clearly linked to its particular political,economic and social context and its international transferability is limited, a number of characteristicsmight have relevance in other contexts (Box 4).

Valiante et al. (1997) stress as key prerequisites for successful co-operation at the Great Lakes interalia:

1. Binationalism in formal mechanism for fact finding on contentious issues;

2. Formal structures: The International Joint Commission and newer arrangements have provided adepoliticised forum for resolving potentially divisive environmental issues;

3. Equality and parity in structure and obligations;

4. Flexibility to adapt to changing circumstances;

5. Substantive objectives of the regime that provide progressive direction and flexibility; and mostimportantly:

6. Development of an influential and informal binational “community”.


- 18 -

BBOOXX 33:: TTHHEE GGRREEAATT LLAAKKEESS EEXXPPEERRIIEENNCCEE IINN EECCOOSSYYSSTTEEMM MMAANNAAGGEEMMEENNTTThe Great lakes basin is a significant international ecosystem. Shared between Canada and the UnitedStates, it contains approximately 20 percent of the Earth’s fresh surface water and is home to some 35million people. Environmental pressure is also a characteristic of the Great Lakes, i.e. eutrophication, con-tamination from toxic substances, fluctuating water levels, introduction of alien species, loss of native fishspecies and wetlands. Despite still existing pollution and deficits in implementation in the two countries(different paces, partly non-compliance), Canada and the US have created an effective institutionalarrangement for implementation of an ecosystem approach: The International Joint Commission - a long-standing, binational, generalist organisation assisted by several newer binational bodies with differenttasks. Substantial progress was made towards ecological goals. Further, co-operation of Governments haschanged behaviour towards the entire ecosystem. Significant resources were devoted to studying the eco-system and to carrying out clean-up programs and restoration measures. Collaboration with industries waseffective and broad participation (states and provinces, environmental and citizen organisations) was en-sured. Despite serious disagreements at times, the two countries as well as the sub-national political enti-ties have continued to participate in the Joint Commission. (Valiante, Muldoon, Botts 1997)

However, it is worth mentioning that international co-operation in comprehensive river basin manage-ment usually takes a very long time to develop and often starts with less demanding arrangementsthan a more holistic ecosystem approach. The establishment of the International Commission forthe Protection of the Rhine (ICPR) took place in 1950, but common measures to reduce the in-creasing pollution of the river were not agreed upon until the 1970s (Schulte-Wülwer-Leidig/Wieriks,1997). Further, much progress was achieved in the aftermath of the Sandoz disaster in 1986. In reac-tion to the disaster riparian states agreed on the Rhine Action Plan, a comprehensive plan to tackleenvironmental problems in a holistic manner including water quality aspects and the protection andrestoration of habitats and floodplains. Further, in 1998 riparian states adopted an Action Plan forFlood Defence which includes, apart from water management, measures in the fields of nature protec-tion policy, agriculture and forestry and spatial planning. Today, the ICPR serves as an example forgood practices in ecosystem management of international river basin because it explicitly considersbiodiversity aspects and the interaction of land-use development and water management. However,one key lesson from the ICPR is that non-legally binding action plans are worth considering in interna-tional co-operation because they can be prepared more quickly and can be more ambitious as legally-binding treaties. The co-operation on the River Rhine has also shown that the identification of a flag-ship species can serve as a symbol for ecosystem management and might help to mobilise publicsupport, i.e. efforts to develop a comprehensive ecological management approach were heavilystimulated by the program Salmon 2000 started in 1991. However, it was the combination of theAction Plans, the emergence of mutual trust, owing to the co-operative atmosphere in formal organ-isational structures, and the provision of considerable financial resources which made the ICPR a suc-cess story.

There are also some encouraging examples for improved consideration of environmental and biodiver-sity aspects in the developing world, even if the label “ecosystem approach” is rarely applied. TheMahakali Treaty (Jha, 1996), for example, explicitly addresses issues of river ecosystem mainte-nance in Uttar Pradesh. Even if economic aspects of water use and sharing of benefits are dominant,co-operation between India and Nepal will also lead to an amelioration of the river basin in environ-mental terms.

Further, the conflict between India and Bangladesh exemplifies the possibility for common action totackle the problem of over-extraction leading to reduced availability of water resource in the down-stream riparian state. In that case, a barrage was built 18 kilometres from the Bangladesh border onthe Ganges River to divert water through a feeder canal to supplement the dry season flow of the


- 19 -

Bhagirathi-Hooghly, the river that serves Calcutta and irrigation needs in West Bengal. On occasionthis had reduced the flow of the Ganges substantially, causing damage to the riparian environment,and in particular affecting the world’s largest mangrove forest, the Sunderabans. A number of attemptshad been made to resolve this dispute, culminating in the signing of the treaty between the two coun-tries in 1997 that defined the mechanisms for sharing the Ganges waters.

Other examples demonstrate that the development of a co-ordinated water resource developmentand management scheme is crucial. This is often the major aim of harnessing riparian states, asborne out by many cases in the past. A realistic basin-wide management scheme may be developedonly through the collaboration of riparian states. Having such a scheme serves as proof for othercountries, in particular donor countries and aid agencies, that riparian countries are on good terms, tothe extent that they have developed the scheme through collaboration and are ready to implement it ina co-ordinated manner. An example is the development scheme of the Mekong River Basin in South-East Asia, although many problems could not be solved. The management of the Okavango Deltaand its biodiversity rich wetlands also has improved albeit increased water withdrawals for urban useis still a politically controversial issue and has threatened significantly biodiversity in the past(Ramberg, 1997). Further, the Lake Chad Basin countries are actually undertaking a project for thesustainable management of groundwater, wetland and land resources in the basin.

In addition, transboundary conservation areas (TBCAs) provide a mechanism to promote soundecological management of transborder ecosystems, and, at the same, promote opportunities forregional political, economic, and cultural co-operation. Ecological benefits of TBCAs are mainly asso-ciated with protecting larger areas. Specifically, TBCAs may improve the protection of internationallyshared resources, such as watersheds, that provide important ecological and economic services.TBCAs may encompass critical portions of watersheds for multiple purposes, such as pollution control,clean water supply, wetland management, and carbon sinks. Hence, TBCAs might serve as a corezone for integrated management in entire river basin. Recently, such transfrontier conservation pro-jects are taking place on East African Lakes (e.g. Lake Victoria, Lake Malawi), for example, whichare globally important for biodiversity as centres of evolution for African freshwater fish. Similar actionsare occurring between South Africa and its neighbouring countries. In all these cases, joint interna-tional recognition of transboundary conservation projects, such as World Heritage Sites and PeaceParks, might strengthen co-operation.

Because many of the approaches and projects mentioned are still in their early stages, it is impossibleto judge their success in terms of ecosystem management. But even if progress can be expected,rapid changes will rarely occur because of the lack of adequate institutional capacities in many coun-tries concerned. This means that international co-operation might favour more comprehensive andecosystem-based approaches in water management, but as vulnerability and degradation of freshwa-ter ecosystems are mostly rooted in incomplete or inappropriate legal and policy frameworks at thenational level the pace in implementing ecosystem-based strategies heavily depends on domesticpolicy reforms. Different stages of economic development and diverging "philosophies" in water man-agement (e.g. water rights, pricing) make ecosystem management a long-term and complicated proc-ess. As success stories have proven effective ecosystem management of transboundary freshwaterecosystems is usually part of a broader evolutionary process of building capacity towards co-operativewater resources frameworks.


- 20 -

4.2 National institutions and ecosystem managementA key prerequisite for successful implementation of an ecosystem-based approach in river basin man-agement are adequate institutions that reach the full range of uses and users that are connected infreshwater ecosystems. While the need for integrated and cross-disciplinary approaches to land andwater management are sufficiently described in theory, too little is known how the demanding conceptcould succeed in practice.

Local/regional government boundariesFreshwater systems extend over a wide range of administrative and bureaucratic boundaries. It israre that a single management unit has the full responsibility for the management of a freshwater eco-system. Therefore, the failure to achieve integrated and environmental-orientated management hasbeen attributed to the strength of local governments and sectoral orientated administrations. This isobviously confirmed by many cases of sector-by-sector fragmented approaches which remain thenorm. Today, there are at least some encouraging examples that prove that ecosystem managementof water resources can be fostered by political measures. The new approach of the European Union(Water Framework Directive) is a frequently cited example for an institutional innovation that will helpto strengthen the integration of ecological objectives in water management, basin by basin. Obliga-tions for the member states of the European Union not only encompass the establishment of inte-grated river basin planning as a key instrument but also the consideration of the effects of water useon aquatic and related terrestrial ecosystems. Although there is still a main focus on water quality,habitats and protection areas, for example, are an important part of the management plans to develop.Equally, the Tennessee River Basin, the new Brazilian water law and the new South African water law(see box 4) show promise for implementing an ecosystem-orientated management (see Duda/El-Ashry, 2000).

BBOOXX 44:: EECCOOSSYYSSTTEEMM--OORRIIEENNTTAATTEEDD MMAANNAAGGEEMMEENNTT IINN SSOOUUTTHH AAFFRRIICCAAThe Mgeni Catchment in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa, is the most socially and economically importantcatchment in the region. However, water demand in the catchment is fast approaching the limits of wateravailability, and water quality is deteriorating. The need to manage the water resources in the MgeniCatchment holistically has led to the formation of Mgeni Catchment Management Plan, the objective ofwhich is to ensure that water resources in the catchment are managed in a sustainable way. These effortson regional scale are heavily supported by the recently adopted new National Water Act, which focuses onthe integrated management of water resources on a catchment basis and explicitly addresses the integra-tion of ecological important areas.

The ecological and economic importance of wetlands in the Mgeni catchment has been recognised, and insupport of the new water law and the Catchment Plan, plans has been initiated to integrate wetlands andwater resources management. To this end, a collaborative effort involving water management institutions,conservation organisations, wetland experts and landowners aimed at the rehabilitation and conservationof priority wetlands in the Mgeni Catchment has been started. (Jewitt/Kotze, 1999)

Administrative co-ordination is a challenge in all countries but they are particularly grave in federalpolitical systems. Against this background, there are two models to distinguish in order to classifypractical approaches (see Mostert, 1999). In the “authority model” water management is a seperatepolicy sector, organised on the basis of hydrological boundaries. Since the advantages of thisapproach (e.g. facilitated basin-wide co-ordination of activities) are obvious, shortcomings may occurdue to insufficient co-ordination with other sector policies and financial instruments. In the “commis-sion model” administrative bodies deal with a range of water-related policies (environmental manage-


- 21 -

ment, land-use planning etc.) but they do not fit with hydrological boundaries. Therefore, basin-wideco-ordination is handled by means of intergovernmental co-ordination and co-operation, often in theframe work of river basin commissions and endorsed or enforced by central government interventions.In practice, these two models have different advantages but both can serve as a tool to enhance eco-logical considerations in water management.

BBOOXX 55:: TTHHEE AAUUSSTTRRAALLIIAA’’SS MMUURRRRAAYY--DDAARRLLIINNGG RRIIVVEERR BBAASSIINN

The case of Murray-Darling basin demonstrates how obstacles stemming from multi-level governmentmight be tackled. Ecological degradation of the river (pollution, salinity, water shortages, degradation offreshwater ecosystems) created a strong impetus for action. Albeit there are still some barriers to inter-state river basin management, and a fully integrated approach for wetland protection in the whole basin isstill lacking, marked improvements in implementing an ecosystem-based management could be achievedin recent years. Reasons for success for improved inter-state river basin management are manifold andcan be put down to effective interaction of measures at the level of the Australian Government and co-ordinated efforts of the states concerned. While the existence of an authority with basin-wide responsibili-ties including an executive arm (Murray-Darling Basin Commission) serves as an example for an institu-tional arrangements with basin-wide responsibilities, environmental orientated reforms, adopted by thecouncil of Australian Government, have pushed the inter-state co-ordination for enhanced integration ofecological aspects. Henceforward, a special allocation of 25% of flow is being set aside for in-stream eco-logical purposes and at the same time water charges are increased, water and salinity reduction marketsare created and nutrient reduction measures are being implemented. The agreement of the Murray-DarlingBasin Ministerial Council in 1995 to establish the collective cap on water extraction from the river repre-sents a unique inter-state initiative to reduce water stress and control water salinity. This action was en-forced via an already existing system of volumetric water allocation across regions, sectors and individu-als. (Postel, 1999)

The Malawi Principles rightly emphasise the necessity for decentralisation because in the past watermanagement was over-centralised in many countries. But devolution of responsibility for water ma-nagement and allocating planning to local or regional entities is not a self-evident process because ofthe many political obstacles and diverging interests. Further, if decentralisation of water managementhas occurred, there is regularly a need for the development of appropriate mechanisms for the resolu-tion of conflicts. While in some cases more or less effective institutions to overcome these obstacleshave been created, the majority of countries still lack appropriate arrangements. The still insufficientallocation of rights to water supplies from the Cauvery River between the states of Karnataka andTamil Nadu in India might serve as a recent example with serious political and environmental conse-quences. These problems are made worse because the states concerned have no established plat-form for collaboration and co-ordination (Soussan/Emmel, 2000). Also in the developed world majorproblems in the co-ordination of the interests of different government levels still exist, as the case ofconflict between the national government of Canada and the province of British Columbia concerningthe realisation of benefits from storing water and producing hydroelectric power exemplifies (Barrett,1993).

However, from the viewpoint of ecosystem management, adequate institutions to deal with differentregional or local interests must be developed. As successful practical approaches demonstrate, anactive and enabling role of the central government is an important factor. In other words, decen-tralisation alone will not automatically lead to an effective ecosystem management because crucial


- 22 -

factors for success remain external from the viewpoint of regional or local ecosystem managers, e.g.sector policy measures, provisions for assignment and enforcement of property rights and further legalinstruments, rules for the identification and designation of protected areas, rules for conflict resolution,inter-regional transfer schemes in cases where benefits of ecosystem protection mostly occur else-where, but not or only partly in the region or river basin concerned.

Sectoral InterestsToday obstacles for an effective implementation of the ecosystem approach in water managementoften result from the characteristics of many national (or regional) water management institutions thatare typically concerned with one set of issues and that do not effectively represent the interests of allconstituencies in their operation. In general, water management institutions still tend to be technically-oriented and are bureaucratic bodies based on one or, at best, two specific aspects of water man-agement. They seek to maximise their supply or outcome with, in many cases, little regard for thesocial impacts and the integrity of the whole ecosystem. As reported by Kottelat/Whitten (1996) theconservation of endangered fish species, for example, often suffers from being placed under differentgovernmental bodies (conservation and fisheries agencies). Since there is no effective co-ordinationbetween the agencies, legally protected fish species are threatened and exotic species are intro-duced and destined for forms of aquaculture even though they harm local biodiversity. In many cases,even environmental or conservation agencies are not really engaged in ecosystem management, butconcentrate their efforts on particular species or habitats that are easily to observe and receive themost publicity.

In general, management units act independently, and have incentives to maximise the welfare of theirown members and are often unaware of the effects of their activities on other users of the ecosystem,especially with regard to impacts on certain functions of freshwater ecosystems, such as the supportof the biodiversity in an entire river basin. But if management units are unable to incorporate theseeffects, the whole water management systems will not lead to an efficient allocation of water in termsof ecosystem management. Experience suggests that there are some effective approaches toattenuate these obstacles:

• Organisational reforms in administration, e.g. the consolidation of water administration and envi-ronmental units or basin-specific inter-ministerial committees;

• Development of sector biodiversity programs and plans, e.g. biodiversity action plans in fishery,water policy etc.,

• Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) including effects on biodiversity as a means ofenhancing consideration of ecosystem management in sector-orientated management units(CEAA, 1996; World Bank, 1998);

• Economic incentives (see 4.3).

Even in many river basin institutions that are entitled to tackle cross-sector management aspects, cer-tain values of freshwater ecosystems have been traditionally over-represented (e.g. agriculture, indus-try) while other users and user groups as well as ecological concerns were under-represented. Pro-gress will be made if all user groups and the public are involved in management processes at the riverbasin level. This means that participation and involvement of stakeholders are crucial for the imple-mentation of ecosystem management. An interesting approach are "River Parliaments", i. e. a forum inwhich all interests are represented, and which defines the rights and responsibilities of different partiesover the management of the river. Although practical experiences are limited and it will be extremelydifficult to get such an initiative going let alone organising the representation of non-use values of


- 23 -

freshwater ecosystems, the approach is based upon social rather than technical processes and assuch might offer opportunities for ecosystem management. In order to facilitate public participation it isuseful to acknowledge the dual character of institution building, as shown in the slogan “Think basin-wide, act watershed specific”. Certain decisions can only be effectively made at the basin level, whilein many cases other decision and effective integration of stakeholders in decision-making could beorganise more effectively at a much lower level such as the sub-catchment.

Decentralisation, local communities and livelihood circumstancesSince river basins can be seen as an appropriate level for action, ecosystem management needs bothdecentralisation and a kind of hierarchy on the basin level to provide overall direction in the watermanagement process. Strategic planning defines broad scale regional goals and basin-wide resourceutilisation and management plans to mobilise the next level in the hierarchy. At this lower level,catchment management plans are translated for specific sub-catchments. The lowest level of the hier-archy is based on operational decisions for, inter alia, specific river reaches, reservoirs, wetlands or tospecific lands.

But even if certain hierarchical structures are useful to effectively implement ecosystem management,especially the potential role of local communities is often underestimated. Since local communities,in particular in developing countries, are directly affected by the degradation of freshwater ecosystem,mobilisation of their knowledge and the consideration of traditional rights and uses is a key element tobroadening the water management perspective and to take potential economic losses of ecosystem’sdegradation into account. In many cases, the search for secure local livelihoods forces local commu-nities to degrade natural resources in the course of economic activities. Therefore, ecosystem man-agement will frequently not be successful if local livelihood circumstances and traditional rights anduses are not taken into account (see Pearce et al., 1988).

It is equally important not to idealise local approaches because there are often rather single-issueinstitutions, and water user associations, for example, may be effective when the efficient allocation ofgoods and services provided by freshwater ecosystems requires intrasectoral rather than intersectoralreallocation of water. But there are many cases which demonstrate the potential benefits of local par-ticipation in ecosystem management strategies and underline the need to achieve both regional co-or-dination and local flexibility. For example, in Pohnpei, a larger volcanic island that belongs to Microne-sia, a community-based approach in watershed management started in 1994 which is an effectivelearning process and it appears to be the only alternative in view of diminishing external aid andrestricted government capacities (Dahl/Raynor, 1996). Local institutions might be particularly importantin cases of extreme environmental events. Howorth (1999) emphasised the importance of local socialorganisations in preserving collective goods and maintaining the integrity of freshwater ecosystems inBurkina Faso. Pirot et al. (2000) describe the importance of involving local communities and usingtheir knowledge for the success of the Hadejia-Nguru Wetlands Project in Northern Nigeria.

Changing role of the stateNew trends in water management force a reconsideration and readjustment of the role of the state inwater management. They demand not only that states, in particular central governments, withdrawfrom many operative activities but, that it take on many new regulatory tasks, often of a very differentnature and requiring different skills and knowledge of the public sector officials. The ecosystem-basedapproach is a good example for these new tasks.

There is a strong tendency to enhance the role of private enterprises in water management stronglyreducing the role of the state in water management and traditional tools of governmental actions are


- 24 -

not longer applicable. Since there are many services and goods provided by freshwater ecosystemswhich directly benefit users, privatisation might be useful to enhance economic efficiency. But it isworth noting that certain services of freshwater biodiversity have a clear public good character.Therefore, effective ecosystem management demands that privatisation of public utilities, for example,is accompanied by effective regulation for those environmental services (e.g. protection of species andtheir habitats, flood control) for which privatisation and the establishment of private property rights isnot possible. This is clearly indicated by international experiences of privatising water utilities (Merrett,1997). However, today governmental agencies alone are in many cases unable to plan and enforceecosystem management (see Bucher et al., 1997)

4.3 The role of incentives in ecosystem managementA successful ecosystem management strategy must integrate environmental, social and economicfactors. However, there are few practical methods for directly linking these different aspects of watermanagement, nor is there one “perfect” instrument that fits all uses and related environmental con-sequences.

How to overcome lack of knowledge and awareness?What is needed as a first step is an understanding of cause-and-effect linkages between wateruse, land-use patterns, hydrological regime and biotic response. While some threats to freshwaterecosystems are quite visible and anticipated, e.g. impacts of dams, drainage canals etc., others arenot, and corrective action is only sought when degradation has already entailed significant threats. Forexample, pollution may be sometimes overlooked due to the seemingly unrelated nature of pollutionsources and affected ecosystems. Furthermore, effects of the introduction of exotic fish species aresometimes hardly to assess in advance because of the generally poor quality of available taxonomicdata and a lack of knowledge concerning long-term results. Equally, the spatial interconnectedness ofwater sources and land use in the catchment areas are often not well understood. Threats to wetlandssuch as floodplains, for example, result from changes in chemical, physical, and hydrological balancesoccurring from activities that are often located at a distance along the upper catchments of the riversystems. Further, unfamiliarity with the full range of freshwater biodiversity also leads the public andwater planners to focus on those aspects of biodiversity that directly interact with local and commercialactivities while the large-scale dynamics and complex interactions are neglected.

Therefore, ecosystem management should start with the identification of the main characteristicsof and pressures on freshwater ecosystems, especially for the most fragile ones. Even if scientificknowledge is still limited, there are many tools that may help to better predict consequences of humanactions on ecosystems, e.g. simulation models, environmental impact assessment, geographicalinformation systems, decision support systems etc. These tools might provide useful information fordecision-makers but in many cases their application is limited due to more fundamental problems inadministrations: lack of staff, lack of training and awareness, insufficient financial provisions, and lackof community involvement.

In addition, better knowledge of the status of and threats to freshwater ecosystems is crucial in politi-cal terms because it provides a necessary basis for a common understanding and the identification ofcommon objectives of all participants and groups or individuals affected. Adequate provision informa-tion and free access to it also means empowerment of people (e.g. third party rights to challengedecisions, rights of access to information) whose engagement is fundamentally needed in order toadequately ensure consensus and push ecosystem management forward. This was proved, for exam-


- 25 -

ple, in the case of proposed structural engineering in the Pantanal (Brazil) which was drasticallyreduced in reaction to the outcomes of an environmental impact study and participation of civil societyand NGOs in the planning process (Bucher et al., 1997).

The identification of pressures and threats should integrate the assessment of economic effects ofthe loss of biodiversity. Such economic estimations are necessary not only for better prediction ofsocial and economic impacts but also to answer the crucial question of how much nature and biologi-cal diversity in a river basin should be preserved or might be “sacrificed” from society’s point of view.There is a growing number of studies which demonstrate how the full economic value (see box 6) canbe assessed and used in water management decision-making (e.g. Swanson et al., 1999;Eaton/Sarch, 1996).

BBOOXX 66:: EECCOONNOOMMIICC BBEENNEEFFIITTSS OOFF FFRREESSHHWWAATTEERR EECCOOSSYYSSTTEEMMSSDirect Values: Fishing, fuel wood, building poles, thatch, hunting, wild foods, medicines, agriculture,

pasture, transport, recreation etc.

Indirect Values: Water quality, water flow, water purification, groundwater recharge, flood control, stormprotection, nutrient retention, micro-climate etc.

Option Values: future pharmaceutical, agricultural and industrial applications of biological resources,leisure use, water based development

Non-Use Values: Intrinsic, existence, cultural, aesthetic etc.

Total Economic Value

For example, for the US, total direct economic losses (e.g. commercial fisheries) and losses of publicgoods by wetland users (recreation, recreational fishing, waterfowl hunting) associated with wetlandlosses from 1954-1992 were estimated at US$ 136 billion, or an imputed average of US$ 10,558 peracre of wetlands lost. Adding the estimate of non-user values to this brings the total to US$ 598.2 bil-lion, or US$ 46,556 per acre lost since 1954 (OECD, 1999). There are similar results in valuation casestudies for developing countries (see Acharya/Barbier, 1997; Barbier, 1997). Further, although thereare practical difficulties, economic valuation is also useful in assessing benefits provided by interna-tional important freshwater ecosystems that have an economic value for persons thousands milesaway (see Carson, 1998). This fact is explicitly addressed in the CBD in its Articles 20/21.

It is not, however, necessary to conduct “perfect” economic valuation to realise that economic aspectsof freshwater ecosystems are important and that it is essential to recognise the costs and benefits indecision-making. As Emerson (2000) has reported, the most important value of urban wetlands inNakivubo (Uganda) is the role that they play in assuring urban water quality, but equally poor urbanpopulation heavily depends on wetland resources for food and income. This case demonstrates thateconomic valuation is not just a place of scientific interest but also that the recognition of benefits ofthe method is especially important in the frame of economic development and in strategies to pro-vide income for the poorest communities. Since in many cases degradation occur due to the con-version of natural ecosystems to way of economic utilisation (agriculture, settlements), ecosystem


- 26 -

managers regularly need economic arguments and concepts to overcome social and economic obsta-cles to determine which protective measures are necessary.

How to encourage people?Generally, it is widely agreed that the multitude of threats to inland water systems demand a varietyof instruments to preserve an ecosystem’s integrity. As experiences in many countries have dem-onstrated, regulatory instruments (“command-and-control policy”) might be adequate to reduce pres-sures on freshwater ecosystems in some cases. For example, there are instances of countries whichapplied effective regulatory instruments (e.g. emission limits) in their overall strategy to enhance waterquality and herewith produced positive side-effects on the preservation of freshwater biodiversity. Inaddition, mitigation and compensation measures might help to reduce the biodiversity impact of plansand projects. But regulatory instruments show various shortcomings: non-compliance occurs regu-larly and improvement of the ecological situation is achieved at a high price. Furthermore, they do notsufficiently take into account the probably most important underlying force of threats to freshwater eco-systems: the lack of adequate incentives to take the full economic and social value of freshwaterecosystems into account. Therefore, both the CBD and the Ramsar Convention, have called for in-centive measures to preserve freshwater biodiversity. Equally, Agenda 21 has recognised the need todevelop economic incentives to protect the environment.

In the past policy failures and market failures in conjunction with the already mentioned institu-tional failures have generated a lack of adequate incentives:

Policy failures occur if the causes of degradation of freshwater ecosystems are not recognised or notsufficiently tackled. Efforts to conserve wetlands via regulatory instruments or management programsmight fail because more fundamental problems of policy intervention failure (e.g. agriculture subsidies,low water prices) are not taken into account.

The underlying reason for market failures is that economic activities are undertaken without conside-ration of the full impact of the activity on the integrity of freshwater ecosystems. Here, market prices donot fully reflect the economic value of water resources. Therefore, externalities occur, which meansthat the social costs of economic activities, for example drainage of a wetland or water withdrawlleading to a loss of habitats, are higher than the private costs. Another example is over-exploitation offish stocks which often occurs when free access to the resource and the absence of adequate pricesignals coincide. Market failures often occur because of ill-defined, disputed or non-existent propertyrights and a lack of markets for goods and services provided by ecosystems. In some cases co-opera-tion between users might take place in order to reduce some of these externalities. Water User Asso-ciations of irrigators sharing an aquifer might serve as an example. But voluntary co-operation is ratherunlikely when there is a strong heterogeneity and asymmetry of uses and users. For example, asym-metrical conflicts might occur between upstream and downstream users, between agricultural andurban users or between water withdrawal and in-stream flow.

Against this background economic incentives serve as a tool for decision-making to integrate all bene-fits of freshwater ecosystems and all costs of loosing their goods and services.

The identification of perverse incentives and alteration to mitigate adverse effects on freshwaterbiodiversity might be a good starting point for action.

In the European Union and in the US, for example, reforms of agricultural policy to enforce environ-mental concerns are being implemented: The main changes are reduction in price support measuresand the removal or reduction of subsidies for the drainage of wetlands in conjunction with compensa-tion payments to farmers for extensification and set-aside schemes and environmentally friendly agri-


- 27 -

cultural practices. In terms of incentive approaches, most European Countries and the US use a mixof regulatory instruments and subsidies rather than taxes or surcharges to change farmers behaviour.In theory, the removal of perverse incentives is one of the most cost-effective instruments for promot-ing conservation or sustainable use of freshwater biodiversity. Yet, perverse incentives are sometimeshard to identify without precise knowledge of the linkages between governmental activities, economicactivities and ecological impacts. Further, countries with lower subsidy levels, for example in agricul-tural policy, are not able to implement a similar policy switch. In addition, in many developing coun-tries, the elimination of perverse incentives might be impeded because they are rooted in informal orad hoc arrangements by government, and not institutionalised as procedures. Finally, people affectedby the removal of incentives regularly demand compensation for income losses. Therefore, even theremoval of subsidies might be an expensive tool.

BBOOXX 77:: TTYYPPEESS OOFF IINNCCEENNTTIIVVEESS IINN EECCOOSSYYSSTTEEMM MMAANNAAGGEEMMEENNTT• Disincentives: removal of perverse incentives that discourage people to protect freshwater ecosystems

• Direct incentives: mechanisms which are targeted to specific objectives in ecosystem management andencourage people

• Indirect incentives: creation of an enabling environment

Further perverse incentives occur when water prices do not reflect effects of water use on freshwaterecosystems. In this case, consumers do not attempt to improve the efficiency of use because waterprices do not reflect the full economic costs of water provision, let alone the full economic value ofwater resources. Therefore, reforms towards full-cost pricing are an important tool in improving condi-tions for ecosystem management, and many countries are going this way (e.g. Mexico, Brazil, South-Africa). In South-Africa, water charges will be increased and extended to all irrigation systems to covernot only operation, maintenance and capital costs but will also include a research levy and water con-servation/management fee (Salet/Dinar, 2000). But in practice, there are numerous obstacles: in somecountries freshwater ecosystem’s goods are viewed as “gifts of god” which should be provided free tothe people. In many countries, state-run utilities and government-regulated franchises often subsidisethe provision of freshwater goods because governments are also concerned with unemployment,sector interests, getting re-elected and so on.

Direct incentives are targeted to specific objectives and include inter alia taxes, charges or levies, orgrants for conservation or restoration measures. Many countries use abstraction charges or effluentcharges (see OECD, 1999) to recover costs, or to promote environmental protection. But targeting acharge to reflect some of the determinants of impacts on freshwater ecosystems (such as seasonalityand flow patterns) is complicated and many of the charges in use only show small effects on biodiver-sity protection. Increasing freshwater biodiversity requires both protection of existing ecosystems andrestoration of degraded systems. While grants might be an effective instrument to stop land conver-sion, the creation of additional wetland reserves or other restoration measures requires funds for thepurchase of sites and their management. While such measures are costly in investment and enforce-ment, their implementation is not self-evident in political terms, in particular if compensation from thebeneficiaries of enhanced biodiversity conservation to the protectors does not take place. However,practical experience suggest, for example, that incentives to private landowner might help to protectcritical watersheds through the expansion of private reserves, as in Colombia (Bucher et al., 1997).Morocco has successfully used a revolving fund for providing loans to urban users both for water


- 28 -

meter installation and for retrofitting water appliances, albeit the effects on freshwater biodiversity arerather indirect.

Further, compensation measures are especially important if globally important freshwater ecosystemsare concerned. Therefore, bilateral and multilateral transfers such as those suggested by Article 20 ofthe CBD and the Global Environment Facility assist in providing necessary financial resources,although there is still room for improvement.

Indirect incentives are those which encourage people to conserve ecosystems by setting in placegeneral enabling conditions. For example, establishing property rights might help to address failures ininstitutions and policies which govern natural resources. The underlying reasoning is that people, ifthey have no secure rights over land or nature, do not have to bear the on-site implications of degra-dation. Various forms of property rights can be used and have been applied as incentives for conser-vation, in particular in the context of rural sustainable development, such as transferring the outrightownership of land or resources to communities through the allocation of leases or concessions.

The importance of assigning property rights and of tradable property rights is frequently stressed, inparticular by economists (Anderson/Snyder, 1997; Easter et al., 1999). Tradable water abstractionrights, transferable fishing rights and tradable emission rights can help to encourage conservation andsustainable use of biodiversity. Here, tradability is the crucial feature because it allows tradingbetween users or owners in order to enhance flexibility and efficiency in use. Tradable water rightsare applied in some countries. While the US, Australia, Chile, Mexico and Brazil have introduced for-mal water markets, in other countries, in particular in South-East Asia informal water markets havedeveloped. In theory tradable water rights might reduce the need for additional capital expenditures,expand the use of existing water supplies, and create an incentive to conserve by making conservedwater transferable. Nevertheless, success of tradable water rights in environmental terms has beenmixed.

BBOOXX 88:: AACCQQUUIISSIITTIIOONN OOFF IINN--SSTTRREEAAMM FFLLOOWW RRIIGGHHTTSSAdvocates of water markets in the US state that in heavily appropriated streams, acquisitions of waterrights to support in-stream flows may present the only effective option for protecting flows. Transfers allowflow restoration through voluntary action. Private organisations or state and federal agencies interested inprotecting in-stream flows can work co-operatively with water right holders who are willing to transfer theirwater rights to in-stream use. Water right holders are fully compensated for selling or leasing their waterrights. Total acquisition of water by lease, purchase, and donation is on an upward trend. Since 1990,more than 2.3 million acre-feet of water have been acquired for in-stream use. The quantity of water tradedincreased considerably in 1995, with more than 600,000 acre-feet of water acquired in that year. This risemarked the beginning of an aggressive campaign by the Bureau of Reclamation to lease water for endan-gered salmon species in the Columbia River Basin. While there are some limitations in practice, it cannonetheless provide an important contribution for the preservation of habitats or forests depending on in-stream flows. (Landry, 1998)

While efficiency gains are obvious, the transfer of water rights involves changes in the use of thefreshwater ecosystem with sometimes negative third-party effects and environmental results. Inother words, improvement in efficiency does not automatically coincide with enhanced protection offreshwater ecosystems. Therefore, effective measures to reduce such externalities stemming fromwater right’s transfer have to be established. However, the necessary institutional or regulatoryarrangements do not exist in all countries (Lee/Jouravlev, 1998). In some cases even negative social


- 29 -

impacts might outweigh economic efficiency gains. Some countries have introduced the possibility foradministrative bodies or NGO’s to acquire “in-stream flow rights”, which maintain levels in a naturalstream or water body for the protection of the watershed or other ecosystems (see box 8). Chile,where numerous problems have occurred in the system of tradable water rights (Bauer, 1998), has inthe meantime specified the minimum in-stream flow for ecological purposes.

Other examples for indirect incentives are transferable fishing quota schemes, which is successfullyapplied in various countries, or the effluent trading scheme in the Tar-Pamlico Basin in North Carolinawhich helps to achieve nutrient reduction goals and addresses non-point nutrient loading while at thesame time allowing municipal dischargers to trade nutrient reduction goals (OECD, 1996).

Tradable water entitlements or other tradable rights are fascinating from a theoretical point of viewbecause of both the economic efficiency gains and the potential positive environmental effects. Nev-ertheless, their succes depends heavily on an adequate regulatory and institutional framework as wellas enforcement of the rights and monitoring of their use.

4.4 Key lessons learnedLack of incentives in conjunction with political, market and institutional failures are the most importantrestrictions to an effective ecosystem management. But there are some encouraging examples whichdemonstrate how obstacles might be overcome. However, ecosystem management is a long-termstrategy in water management and can not be achieved overnight. Implementation of an ecosystemapproach should follow a step-by-step approach:

Fig. 2: Creating an enabling environment in freshwater ecosystems management

Context on site• status of freshwater biodiversity• current management• economic valuation of freshwater ecosystems• social variations (user groups)

Direct causes on site• overexploitation• conversion of habitats• destructive land-use practices• pollution

Creating an enabling environment

Underlying causes• policy failure• market failure• institutional failure (incl. local livelihood decision)

Creating an enabling environmentCreating an enabling environmentin freshwater ecosystems managementin freshwater ecosystems management

•• removal of perverse incentives removal of perverse incentives•• direct incentives direct incentives•• indirect incentives indirect incentives

•• empowerment of people (access empowerment of people (access to information, third party to information, third party interests, participation interests, participation


- 30 -

First, identification of underlying and case-specific pressures is crucial and a kind of economic valua-tion in conjunction with a deep consideration of social circumstances (local livelihood decisions) heav-ily important.

Second, many advocates of ecosystem management oversee institutional obstacles. Therefore, insti-tution building and capacity building must be an integral part of ecosystem management strategies.While accomplishment of the tasks of ecosystem management are already costly and difficult in “sim-ple” cases, the accomplishment in the context of natural and institutional system complexity is some-times impossible, especially in the short term. Therefore, ecosystem management should not insist onunrealistic institutional options with a “vision” of full co-ordination of all users and uses, but start in theframework of existing institutions and use a piecemeal approach.

Third, in order to make ecosystem management a success story there is a clear need for the creationof an enabling environment that was traditionally neglected in classical nature conservation policy.Different incentive measures might be useful, but there concrete applicability and success depends onvarious institutional and economic factors, and an adequate regulatory framework must be in place. Ingeneral, incentive measures should be the outcome of a deep analysis of the nature of the problem(see fig. 2). If ecosystem managers do not precisely know why and how people’s activities result indegradation of freshwater ecosystems incentive measures can not be designed nor implemented.

Fourth, ecosystem management is further complicated by the need for international co-operation. Assuccess stories have proved holistic ecosystem management is highly demanding in political termsand surly impossible if “basic” arrangements between riparian states are not in force. Therefore start-ing with agreements on some essentials for the preservation of freshwater ecosystems (water quality,in-stream flows) might be appropriate. Even in that cases which are often cited as success stories(Great Lakes, River Rhine etc.) ecosystem management was not the starting point but has developedon the basis of co-operation and mutual trust emerging from successful co-operation concerning real-istic and short-term political goals (e.g. water pollution and/or the distribution of water quantity).

Challenges

- 31 -

5 ChallengesThis report has introduced a number of aspects in ecosystem management of freshwater resources:international conventions, principles of ecosystem management, and restrictions and potentials fortheir implementation in water management. In short, what is required for implementation is the evolu-tion of institutions and incentives that promote an ecosystem-based approach in water manage-ment. This is not a total new insight as the need for institution building in water management is recog-nised since many years. However, loss of biodiversity and ecosystem water management are rela-tively new tasks and experience is still limited. Further, advocates of the ecosystem managementoften argue from the viewpoint of natural sciences and do not sufficiently ponder on necessary institu-tional, organisational, instrumental or financial prerequisites. Briefly, the "who and how" of the imple-mentation of ecosystem management is still a question that is not fully explored.

Promote ecosystem management in international agreements

Today, agreements between riparian states are confined to a limited scope, and diverging interests ofstates constitute main obstacles for integrated management of transboundary rivers. Riparian Statesalready might consider minimum in-stream flow when negotiating water allocations, and water qualityissues. Ecosystem management will only succeed if States increasingly recognise the usefulness ofthe concept. Therefore, there is a need for demonstrating benefits. Those economic and social bene-fits regularly exist, but in many cases ecosystem managers arguments stem more from natural sci-ence and ethics. Further, one basic problem is that cost and benefits of the preservation of ecosys-tems are not equally distributed between riparian states. Consequently, mechanism to compensatepotential losers need to be establish, i.e. financial transfers or measures that generate a benefit flow inreverse direction.

In addition, ecosystem management might be used as guideline while in many cases concrete actionshould aim to resolve less “holistic” problems (river flow, pollution). Further, there are some concreteinstruments to develop and to implement: The obligation for a strategic environmental assessmentincluding transboundary biodiversity effects, for example, can serve to enhance knowledge and toconstitute a basis for negotiations. Further, the ratification of the Watercourse Convention would be asign of “good will” and could make negotiations easier. However, since progress on international orregional level and domestic policy reforms and institution building are two sides of the coin, ecosystemmanagers always may take into account national capacities (e.g. legal, organisational)

Identify threats and economic benefits of preservation

Much more has to be done to enhance our knowledge on status and trends of freshwater biodiversity,especially on the national and sub-national level. Ecological understanding is still weak and economicvaluation of costs and benefits of measures aiming to conserve biodiversity are not frequently applied.Indicators that could be used to measure status and trends of river basins’ biodiversity are needed.The role of water experts is to co-operate in the development of indicators which can be easily appliedin decision-making. Further, elaboration and dissemination of case studies which demonstrate theusefulness of the ecosystem-based approach is a task for water experts.

Consider ecosystems and social needs

Ecosystem management will not succeed if key goals of national and international water policy are nottaken into account. Recently, for example, international water policy pursue important social goals as itaims to significantly enhance people’s access to clean water. Therefore, priorities in water manage-

Challenges

- 32 -

ment frequently are not preservation of habitats, for example, but water projects that aim to meet ele-mentary needs. Against this background, the development of win-win options on the level of programs,plans and projects is a major task and should also include effective mitigation and compensationmeasures.

Find partners for ecosystem management

Implementation of ecosystem management is not a self-evident process in political terms. One of thebest ways to promote collaboration is the creation of networks and partnerships that links sectoralinterests and stakeholders. There are different options to succeed in the creation of partnerships forecosystem management. For example, local communities regularly benefit from ecosystem manage-ment. Further, participation of civil society and NGOs is crucial in order to get an enhanced represen-tation of all uses of water in decision-making. There are even organisational options to create a forumfor all uses and users (e.g. river parliaments). However, one important way to find partners is theestablishment of incentive measures aiming to encourage people in preservation of freshwater eco-systems. Although experience demonstrates the benefits of incentive measures, there still is no deepknowledge on effectiveness and efficiency in terms of ecosystem management.

Balance all related decision-making levelsDecentralisation is a necessary prerequisite for ecosystem management, and the level of river basinsthe most appropriate. However, there still remains responsibilities on the national level, even if imple-mentation should occur on the level of river basins. As success stories has proven, effective ecosys-tem management also depends on (legal and economic) decisions that has to be taken at the centralgovernmental level. Equally, devolution and participation of local communities are needed. Therefore,there is a kind of a “centralisation/decentralisation dilemma” in ecosystem management which onlycan be tackled by sufficiently flexible institutions. However, experience is rather limited.

Communicate ecosystem management!

Since ecosystem management still shows an academic charm there is a need to better communicatethe idea and to translate the rather abstract objectives and principles. A major communication strategymight identify the main problems that relate to the people (e.g. pollution impacts on fishes or drinkingwater); present options for sustainable use of freshwater ecosystems; and use key species with highrelevance for the whole ecosystem in order to receive public attention.

References

- 33 -

ReferencesAbramovitz, J. (1996): Imperiled waters, impoverished future: decline of freshwater ecosystems. Worldwatch

Paper No. 128, Washington D. C.Acharya, G.; Barbier, E. B. (1997): Valuing the Hadejia-Jama’are wetlands of northern Nigeria. Report prepared

for the IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.Anderson, T. L.; Snyder, P. (1997): Water markets. Priming the invisible pump, Washington D.C.Barbier, E. B. ; Thompson, J. R: (1998): The value off water: floodplain versus large-scale irrigation benefits in

northern Nigeria, in: Ambio 27(6), pp. 434-440.Barett, S. (1993): Conflict and co-operation in management of international water resources, The World Bank,

Washington D.C.Bauer, C. J. (1998). Against the Current: Privatisation, Water Markets, and the State in Chile, Dordrecht.Biermann, F. (1997): Umweltvölkerrecht. Eine Einführung in den Wandel umweltrechtlicher Konzeptionen zur

Weltumweltpolitik, WZB Berlin, pp. 34-42.Botts, L.; Muldoon, P. (1996): The Great lakes Water Quality Agreement: Its past success and uncertain future,

Hanover, Institute on International Environmental Governance.Brunnee, J.; Toope, S. J. (1994): Environmental Security and Freshwater Resources: A Case for International

Ecosystem Law, in: Yearbook of International Environmental Law, Vol. 5, pp. 41-76.Bucher, E.; Castro, G.; Floris, V. (1997): Freshwater ecosystem conservation: towards a comprehensive water

resources management strategy, Inter-American Development Bank, Washington D.C.Carson, R. T. (1998): Valuation of tropical rainforests: philosophical and practical issues in the use of contingent

valuation, in: Ecological Economics, Vol. 12, pp. 17-29.CBD (Convention on Biological Diversity) (2000): Note by the Executive Secretary of the Convention on Biological

Diversity submitted to the Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention onClimate Change (UNFCCC) at its sixth session and the UNFCCC Subsidiary Body on Scientific andTechnological Advice at the second part of its thirteenth session.The Hague, 13-24 November 2000

CEAA (Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency) (1996): Research and Development Reports Series: AGuide on Biodiversity and Environmental Assessment. Canadian Environmental AssessmentAgency/Biodiversity Convention Office, Hull, Quebec.

Costanza, R., et al. (1997): The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital, in: Nature 387, pp.253-260.

Dahl C.; Raynor, B. (1996). Watershed planning and management: Pohnpei, Federated States of Micronesia, in:Asia Pacific Viewpoint, 37(3), pp. 235-253

Duda, A. M.; El-Ashry, M. (2000): Addressing the global water and environment crisis through integratedapproaches to the management of land, water and ecological resources, in: Water Internationa, Vol. 25(1),pp. 115-126.

Easter, K. W., et al. (eds.) (1998). Markets for Water: Potential and Performance. Dordrecht.Eaton, D.; Sarch, M.-T. (1996): The economic importance of wild resources in the Hadejia-Nguru wetlands,

Nigeria. CREED Working paper series No. 13, International Institute for Environment and Development,London.

Eaton, D.; Sarch, T.-M. (1997): The economic importance of wild resources in the Hadejia-Nguru wetlands,Collaborative Research in the Economics of environment and Development (CREED), Working Paper No.13, International Institute for Environment and Development, London.

Emerton, L. (2000): Community-based incentives for nature conservation, IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.Howorth, C. (1999): Rebuilding the total landscape: environmental management in Burkina Faso, Aldershot.Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2001: 3rd Special Report on Land Use, Land-Use Change

and Forestry. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Jewitt, G. P. W.; Kotze, D.C. (1999): Wetland conservation and rehabilitation as components of integrated

catchment management in the Mgeni catchment, Kwazulu-Natal, South Africa, Scottsville, South Africa.Jha, H.B. (1996) : Mahakali Treaty: Implications for Nepal's Development. Nepal: Foundation for Economic and

Social Change.Kottelat, M.; Whitten, T. (1996): Freshwater biodiversity in Asia with special reference to fish, The World Bank,

Washington D.C.Landry, C. J. (1998): Saving our streams through water markets. A practical guide, Political Economic Research

Centre, Bozeman.Lee, T. R.; Jouravlev, A. S.(1998): Prices, Property and Markets in Water Allocation, United Nations Commission

For Latin America and the Caribbean, Serie Medio Ambiente y Desarrolo, Santiago.Maltby, E. et al. (1999): Ecosystem management:: questions for science and society. Royal Holloway Institute for

Environmental Research, Royal Holloway, University of London, Egham.McAllister, D.E.; Craig, J. F.; Davidson, N.; Delany, S.; Seddon, M. (2000): Biodiversity impacts of large dams,

prepared for IUCN/UNEP/WCD, Geneva.

References

- 34 -

McAllister, D.E.; Hamilton, A.L.; Harvey, B. (1997): Global freshwater biodiversity: Striving for the integrity offreshwater ecosystems, in: Sea Wind, Vol. 11(3), pp. 1-140.

McCaffrey, S. C. (1991): Environment-related Work of the International Law Commission at its 1990 Session, in:Environmental Policy and Law, 21/1, p. 6.

McCaffrey, S. C.; Sinjela, M. (1998): Current Developments. The 1997 United Nations Convention onInternational Watercourses, in: The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 92, pp. 97-107.

McCartney, M. P.; Acreman, M. C.; Bergkamp, G. (2000): Freshwater ecosystem management and environmentalsecurity, Final Version of the Discussion Paper prepared for the Freshwater Ecosystem Management andEnvironmental Security Workshop held by the IUCN in San José, Costa Rica, June, 1999.

Merrett, S. (1997): Introduction to the economic of natural resources, London.Mostert, E. (ed.): River basin management and planning; institutional structures, approaches and results in five

European countries and six international basins, RBA Series on River Basin Administration, ResearchReport nr. 10, RBA Centre, Delft.

Moyle, P.B.; Leidy, R.A. (1992): Loss of biodiversity in aquatic ecosystems: evidence from fish fatinas, in: Fiedler,P. L.; Jain, S. K. (ed.): Conservation biology: the theory and practice of nature conservation, preservationand management. Chapman and Hall, New York, pp. 127-169.

OECD (1999): US experiences with incentive measures to promote the conservation of wetlands, Working Groupon Economic Aspects of Biodiversity, Paris.

OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) (1998): Water management-performance andchallenges in OECED countries, Paris.

OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) (1996): Saving biological diversity: economicincentives, Paris.

Pearce, D. W.; Barbier, E. B.; Markandya (1998): Environmental economics and decision-making in Sub-SaharanAfrica, IIED/UCL London Environmental Economics Centre, Paper 88-01.

Pearce, D.; Moran, D. (1996): The economic value of biodiversity, London.Pirot, J.-Y; Meynell, P.-J.; Elder, D. (2000); Ecosystem management: lessons from around the world. A guide for

development and conservation practitioners, IUCN, Gland, Switherland and Cambride.Ramberg, L. (1997): A pipeline from the Okavango River?, in: Ambio, Vol. 26, No. 2, pp. 129-136.Saleth, R. M.; Dinar, A. (2000): Institutional changes in global water sector: trends, patterns, and implications, in:

Water Policy, Vol. 2, pp. 175-199.Sather, J.M; Smith, R.D. (1984): An overview of major wetland functions and values. US Fish and Wildlife

Service, FWS/OBS-84/18.Scheumann, W.; Klaphake, A. (2001): Freshwater Resources and Transboundary Rivers on the International

Agenda: From UNCED to RIO+10, Gutachten im Auftrag des Bundesministeriums für wirtschaftlicheZusammenarbeit, German Development Institute, Bonn.

Schulte- Wülwer-Leidig, A.; Wieriks, K. (1997): Grenzüberschreitender Gewässerschutz am Rhein. Entwicklungeines ganzheitlichen, nachhaltigen Gewässerschutzes in internationaler Kooperation, in: Barandat, J.(ed.): Wasser – Konfrontation oder Kooperation, Baden-Baden, pp. 298-315.

Soussan, J.; Emmel, N. (2000): Freshwater ecosystems and social security, Final Version of the DiscussionPaper prepared for the Freshwater Ecosystem Management and Social Security Workshop held by theIUCN in Harare, Zimbabwe, April 1999.

Swanson, T.; Mourato, S.; Day, B. (1999): Valuing water quality in developing countries: the case of China, in:Environmental Science.

The World Bank (1997): Sourcebook Update no.20 on biodiversity and environmental assessment. - The WorldBank, Washington, D.C.

The World Bank (1998): Annual Report 1998, Washington D.C.UNEP (United Nations Environmental Program) (1991): Status of Desertification and implementation of the United

Nations Plan of Action to Combat Desertification United Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi, Kenya,88 pp.

Valiante, M.; Muldoon, P.; Botts, L (1997): Ecosystem governance: lessons from the Great Lakes, in: Young, O.R.(e.): Global governance: drawing insights from the perspective of the environmental experience,Cambridge, pp. 197-226.

Wallensteen, P.; Swain, A. (1996): International Freshwater Resources: Source of New Conflict. Sweden:Department of Peace and Conflict Research, Uppsala University.

WBGU (Wissenschaftlicher Beirat der Bundesregierung Globale Umweltveränderungen) (1998): Die Anrechnungbiologischer Quellen und Senken im Kyoto-Protokoll. Fortschritt oder Rückschritt für den Umweltschutz?,Sondergutachten 1998, Bremerhaven.

WRI (World Resources Institute) (1998): A Guide to the Global Environment. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.WWF (World Wildlife Fund for Nature) (1999): Living Planet Report – 1999, Washington D. C.

Annex

- 35 -

Annex

Chronology of the CBD process and external fora exemplifying the development of freshwater ecosystemsInternationalConference on Waterand the Environment(ICWE) (Dublin, 1992)

• Assessment of current status of freshwater resources• Identification of priority issues• Development of coordinated intersectoral approaches• Formulation of strategies and programmes• Integrated water resources development and management

UNCED (Rio deJaneiro, 1992)

Conventions on Climate Change, Biodiversity and Desertification; no focus on freshwaterecosystems.

Ramsar-6 (Brisbane,1996)

Strategic Plan: Need to integrate conservation of wetland biodiversity and sustainable development;cooperation with CBD implemented.

COP-3 (Buenos Aires,1996)

Future programme of work for terrestrial biological diversity: dryland, mountain and inland waterecosystems;Requests SBSTTA to provide COP-4 with scientific, technical and technological advice on the statusand trends of biological diversity in inland water ecosystems and the identification of options forconservation and sustainable use.

UNGASS-19 (NewYork, 1997)

• Integrated watershed management• Call for dialogue under aegis of CSD (beginning with CSD-6)

WorkshopBiodiversity of InlandWaters (Bureau of theConvention onWetlands, IUCN-CEM,Wetlands International)(Wageningen, 1997)

Linkage of scientific and technical organisations working on biodiversity of inland water ecosystems,with a view to implementation of the CBD and the Ramsar Convention. Controversial discussionson:• Status and trends particularly on scale of loss and nature of ecosystem degradation.• Proximate or underlying causes of trends.• Status, trends and threats to genetic diversity and ecosystem• The necessity for conflict resolution to reduce competition for water resources, for example

between aquaculture and water extraction• Large scale (i.e. global) threats, for example global or regional climate change• Information on mechanisms for co-ordination.

SBSTTA-3, GBF8(Montreal, 1997)

Workshop on Biological Diversity in Inland Water Ecosystems: initiative to strengthen the CBD,discussing:• Ecosystem-based approach• Threats to biodiversity• Cooperation

InternationalConference on Waterand SustainableDevelopment (Paris,1998)

Water resources and uses; Global Water Partnership; International Network of Basin Organizations(INBO)Concerns were raised about tendencies to focus on scarcity as the main water crisis while neglec-ting problems of poor water management and about the proliferation of regional coordinationactivities. Participants reiterated that water problems will only be managed once societies learn tolive with existing resources and plan better for the future.

ECOSOC / CSD-6(New York, 1998)

Topic: Strategic approaches to freshwater management. Assessed deficits:• Lack of awareness of the scope and function of freshwater management• absence of explicit linkages with socio-eco. development• declining capacity to assess the availability and variability of water resources• scarse mobilization of financial resources

COP-4, GBF 10(Bratislava, 1998)

Work programme: Status and trends of the biological diversity of inland water ecosystems andoptions for conservation and sustainable use; Joint Work Plan with Ramsar 1998-1999 endorsed.

Ramsar-7 (1999) Joint Work Plan with CBD; lessons learned in integrated watershed management and river basinmanagement, ecosystem-based approach.

SBSTTA-4 (Montreal,1999)

Progress Report on the Implementation of Programme of Work on Inland Water; implementation ofJoint Work Plan with Ramsar 2000-2001; cooperation with other organizations (ACC, CSD).


Inland Waters Biological Diversity: Ways and Means to Implement the Programme of Work.Assessed deficits:• Few information submitted;• Lack of rapid assessment methods;• Case-studies not sufficient in number and detail

Annex

- 36 -

COP-5 (Nairobi, 2000) Executive Secretary became member of the Subcommittee on Water Resources of the Admi-nistrative Committee on Coordination (ACC) of the UN, which is the task manager for chapter 18 ofAgenda 21 (CSD); endorsement of Joint Work Plan with Ramsar, launching of River Basin Initiative;collaboration with CSD; ecosystem and precautionary approaches; compilation on information onthe implementation of the programme of work on the biological diversity of inland ecosystems.


Biological diversity of inland water ecosystems: Progress report on the implementation of theProgramme of Work.

biodiversity and international water policy · biodiversity and international water policy ......

Documents