Article 7

7.2 Application


States A and B share a river forming the border between the two countries. While state A is considerably less economically developed than state B, the government of the former is pushing for new industrial projects along the river in order to catch up.

State A does not intend to limit pollutant discharges into the river to the sophisticated extent state B has been doing for decades. State B is therefore concerned that the planned expansion of the industrial activity will significantly harm the international watercourse. Without applying ‘best available technologies’ (BATs), the ecosystem will suffer unnecessary harm and the tourism industry in state B, which depends on the watercourses flora and fauna, will incur heavy losses. Hence, state B claims that state A is not taking all appropriate measures to prevent the significant harm.

Since state A still has to be considered a ‘developing country,’ state B cannot demand imposing the same level of environmental regulation on state A’s industry. However, instead of simply demanding payment of compensation, which would be possible according to Article 7(2), a more promising way forward here would be to enter into an agreement regarding sharing of information and technological know-how in order to achieve a coherent management of the river in the best possible way for both states.

Download Fact Sheets

Equitable and Reasonable Utilisation

No Significant Harm Rule

Relationship with UNECE Water Convention

Relationship with SADC Revised Protocol

 

Global Water Facts

.
.
global water facts
global water facts

Connect with us

Connect on facebook Connect on twitter Subscribe to rss

Supported by

WWF UN Water Law Green Cross University of Dundee IHP-HELP - Under the auspices of UNESCO