State A and state B share a river that flows through a number of conservation areas which have been afforded protected area status under national legislation within the two states. The states take the decision to preserve the ecosystems of this international watercourse by designating the entire river basin as a transboundary protected area.

State A receives a planning proposal to drain a wetland in order to develop the land for agricultural purposes. However, joint studies demonstrate that draining the wetland would increase the severity of floods downstream in state B. Studies also show there are significant recreational and cultural benefits associated with the wetland, such as the unique flora and fauna, and the site is popular with walkers, cyclists and kayakers who contribute significantly to the local economy. An analysis of the costs and benefits of maintaining the site as a natural wetland therefore demonstrate that any draining of the wetland would be inequitable and unreasonable.