In the same way that there are internationally shared river basins, there are also
internationally shared, or transboundary, groundwater resources hidden below
ground surface in all parts of the world. Although it is not visible as surface water,
it is spreading everywhere in the landmass and is contained in the pore spaces
of rock formations (aquifers).
With the non-stop increase of population and the unlimited need of fresh water,
the importance of groundwater grows day by day.
In the previous presentations we talked about surface transboundary waters, and
the many conventions and treaties that took place to solve the problems between
countries on these shared waters, however the hidden nature of transboundary
groundwater and lack of legal frameworks invites misunderstandings by many
policy makers.
What makes groundwater issues more difficult than surface water issues?
1. Aquifers are rarely homogenous in composition, determining their flow
patterns can be complicated.
2. Unlike transboundary surface water and river basins, transboundary
aquifers are not well known to policy makers.
3. The dynamics of these aquifers, namely that 3-dimensional groundwater
flow (known as anisotropy) can take place from one side of a boundary to
another and this factor is of prime concern when dealing with
management of the resources.
4. Hydrologists can’t predict reliable amounts of the shared ground waters in
different countries as they can do with surface waters.
5. Present International Law does not adequately address the issues
concerning spatial flow of ground waters and has limited application in
conditions where impacts from neighboring countries can be subtle to
develop.
Transboundary Groundwater and Water Conventions:





The inclusion of groundwater in international water law principles traces
back to the International Law Association's (ILA) 1966.
The Helsinki Rules included underground waters associated with a system
of surface waters in the definition of "watercourse”.
A watercourse is a system of surface waters and ground waters
constituting a unitary whole and normally flowing into a common terminus.
Because of the growing groundwater crisis, and the legal implications of
surface-underground interactions, the ILA again directed its attention to
groundwater at its Seoul Conference in 1986.
More effort was developed on international legal principles governing the
use and protection of groundwater in the Bellagio Draft Treaty where the
major focus was on the importance of establishing joint commissions to
manage international groundwater resources.
Including the topic of shared underground waters in the several water
conventions mentioned above was an important thing because of the important
interaction between underground and surface waters, but it has many weak
points in the same time:





International law has largely ignored or discounted the importance of
groundwater as a shared resource. The relative invisibility of international
groundwater law reflects both a general lack of understanding of the
hydrological characteristics of aquifers and the underdeveloped state of
domestic water law in many countries.
In 1986, the ILA developed the Seoul Rules. The term "aquifer" was
defined in the rules to include "all underground water bearing strata
capable of yielding water on a practicable basis. Importantly, the Seoul
Rules applied "whether or not the aquifer and its waters formed with
surface waters part of a hydraulic system flowing into a common terminus.
However, in the 1997 Convention's broad definition of "international
watercourse" included groundwaters that are part of a system of waters
flowing into a common terminus. The broad definition of "international
watercourse" in the 1997 Convention excluded one notable type of
groundwater from its scope: aquifers that had no interaction with surface
waters.
There was no distinguishing between surface water and groundwater
when talking about the obligation not to cause significant harm, or the
principle of prevention, reduction and control of pollution. This should be
an important concern because of the differences between groundwater
and surface water flows.
The terminology used in international legal principles didn’t coincide all the
time with that used by scientists.
Although joint management of surface and groundwaters is important, merely
including groundwater in the scope of international conventions designed mainly
for surface water is not an entirely appropriate method of dealing with
groundwater issues.
ISARM (International
Management)
Shared
Transboundary
Aquifer
Resources
A clear need has been identified for an international initiative on Internationally
Shared/Transboundary Aquifer Resources Management. With the support of
UNESCO and IAH in co-operation with FAO and UNECE. A meeting of experts
was held at UNESCO in Paris 27–28 March 2000. As a result of the meeting the
ISARM program has been tabled. The Program is expected to culminate in 2006
and to publish an inventory of Transboundary Aquifer Systems (TAS).
In any legal agreements to be drawn up for the equitable share of transboundary
resource, ISARM see that the initial stage must be the correct identification of
flow and movement of water followed by its quantification.
This understanding begins with knowledge of basic hydrological processes.
Relating this to specific situations requires understanding of the extent and
nature of the aquifer, how it relates to other aquifers and hydro-geologic features,
how the recharge and discharge of water takes place within the aquifer, and
where potential sources of contamination are located.
Goals of ISARM
1. To improve understanding of scientific, socio-economic, legal, institutional
and environmental issues surrounding the management of transboundary
aquifers.
2. To support co-operation among countries to develop their scientific
knowledge and to eliminate potential for conflict, particularly where
conceptual differences might create tensions
Questions for discussion:
1. Can the critical international water issues, including transboundary
groundwaters, continue to be delayed and left to unended negotiations? If
yes. Won’t that worsen the problem of scarcity of water resources that
are increasing with increasing development?
2. Who is responsible for implementing the rules that water conventions put
to come up with compromise between riparian countries?
Readings:
1.
2.
3.
http://www.transboundarywaters.orst.edu/publications/Matsumoto.pdf
http://isarm.nitg.tno.nl/docs/framework.pdf
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3970/is_200501/ai_n10298170