Rethinking the management of transboundary freshwater resources: a critical examination of modern international law and practice

Available freshwater stocks are being depleted and impaired on a widespread basis, with acute shortages an increasingly frequent condition in arid climates. In transboundary basins, water scarcity and pollution compound interstate tension and contribute to human suffering and ecological damage. This article provides theoretical perspectives on shared freshwater disputes and on the evolution of the international law of shared water resources. It argues that the UN Convention on the Non-Navigational Uses of International Watercourses (ratified by some countries, but not yet in force) is inadequate as a framework convention in terms of providing general obligations on the future parties or an institutional framework for future action. The paper suggests that three critical concepts be considered in future management of shared water resources: (1) the unitary character of watersheds (where the absence of extra-basin diversions allows); (2) joint or "communitarian" watershed management; and (3) the relevance of international trade to alleviating regional food stress, resulting from local water scarcity. Finally, it proposes the establishment of an international advisory body on shared water disputes, modelled after the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), whose role is codified in the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.     

Heterogeneity of experts’ opinion regarding opportunities and challenges of tackling deforestation in the tropics: a Q methodology application

Making the concept of Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD+) ready to be a mechanism to combat tropical deforestation and associated greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by compensating developing countries for income foregone in reducing their rates of deforestation, requires solutions for outstanding controversies. Existing opinions on REDD+ vary greatly. By using the Q-method as part of an action research approach, this paper investigates experts’ attitudes towards REDD+. Based on their responses to 41 statements, four attitudinal groups were identified, characterized as pragmatists, sceptics, conventionalists and optimists. Opinions between groups differed as to the level of application, credibility, eligibility, economic effectiveness, and public acceptability of REDD+ policy instruments. Three of the four groups were supportive of international REDD+ type policy interventions, but there was disagreement on the more concrete design issues of REDD+ projects, such as the allocation of responsibilities, the distribution of burdens and benefits, and whether or not co-benefits could be expected, or should be required. As the potential of REDD+ is shaped not only by international climate policy but also by national and regional policies and stakeholder perceptions, this paper suggests that participatory forms of decision-making may help to develop tailor-made solutions that are supported by the many different actors that are necessarily involved in REDD+ projects.