[MUSIC] [MUSIC] [MUSIC] >> Hello. We are pleased to welcome Marie-Laure Vercambre, Director of the Water for Life and Peace program at the Green Cross International. Hello Marie-Laure. >> Hello Komlan. So my first question is the following: what role did your organization play in the ratification process for the Convention on the Law of Non-Navigational Uses of International Watercourses? >> Referred to as the United Nations Watercourses Convention during this interview, it was adopted by the United Nations in 1997 following several decades of negotiations. The Green Cross is an NGO created by Mikhail Gorbachev in 1993 and its mission is to prevent conflicts over natural resources and find solutions to address the environmental consequences of conflict. Very quickly, the organization turned to address issues linked with the legal governance of environmental issues. But one element, a resource, that was poorly addressed from a legal perspective, was water. To recall, what happened in 1993 and a few years later in 1997? The Helsinki Convention, the UNECE Convention which deals with transboundary rivers and lakes, which entered into force in 1992. It was still recent, even though the text was very similar to the 1997 Convention. The EU Water Framework Directive did not exist. A number of basins had basin agreements but even today it is estimated that only 40% of all transboundary basins benefit from a basin agreement. So there was definitely a legal vacuum. And so the Green Cross decided to look into this fundamental question. What did we do? We started with our founding President, Mikhail Gorbachev and he promoted the United Nations Convention on International Watercourses, the 1997 Convention through his speeches, through his articles, through his writings. As a result, Mikhail Gorbachev was invited to the 2000 World Water Forum in The Hague. In his speech, he called on all States to ratify the 1997 Convention. So we made ourselves spokesperson of the Convention which was not actually promoted by a United Nations agency. And so, as we had this freedom we decided to promote this Convention. It was a contribution from a non-governmental organization from civil society. We promoted the Convention directly but we also promoted, more generally, the legal governance of water on a global scale. In the early years of the Green Cross, we worked with several legal experts on a draft water convention that placed the human right to safe drinking water and sanitation as the cornerstone of the convention which prioritized how water is used. Essential human needs and populations were prioritized. And so, we were working on two fronts. On the Convention which already existed and at the time, the UNECE Convention had not yet been amended to be ratified by other countries. Meanwhile the 1997 Convention had not even entered into force. So for Green Cross, it was essential to promote the global legal governance of water resources and the human right to drinking water and sanitation. We faced several difficulties. First of all, as surprising as it may be, the 1997 Convention several years after its adoption until very recently, was not well known. The Convention was unknown to administrations. The officials, the administrations that had participated in the negotiations were often no longer the same. And it would appear that the States which had voted for the text of the Convention to be adopted at the United Nations General Assembly, that is to say, more than 100 countries, you might expect that these countries would ratify the Convention. Well, that wasn't the case. When we really started to get in touch with administrations, governments on this issue, there were roughly 15 States Parties to the Convention. It was almost ten years since its adoption at the United Nations. So there had been some, the detractors, who spoke about a still-born Convention that would never move beyond a framework agreement, to inspire other agreements, and it deserved to stay there. So we faced this difficulty which was a real difficulty, but ultimately not insurmountable. And that's where the role of those promoting this Convention becomes interesting. In some cases it was sufficient to jog the memory of administrations and governments about its existence, its quality and relevance so that they would take another look at the Convention. Some had adopted basin agreements and had been inspired by it. Some were not persuaded that it was relevant for their country to ratify. And so our task consisted of engaging in dialogue with governments. This had its difficulty as all governments are in high demand and already engaged on many other things. It was also, of course, a Convention that deals with transboundary waters and is therefore considered sensitive and even when States are well integrated in a region, questions still arise. I am thinking in particular about a State such as France. It was already part of the European Union and in 1997 when the Convention was adopted by the United Nations, it abstained. This was because there was an ongoing dispute with the States downstream of the Rhine. France abstained and would not ratified the Convention. France has ratified it since then. And so a number of States were rather unreceptive. And many States are still very cautious about this Convention. There were also many countries who had agreements for their own watercourses and basins but did not necessarily see the relevance of a Convention at the international level. And that was also a big job to persuade and exchange. And this is where civil society plays an important role in engaging with all stakeholders. So what did we do at that time? Green Cross took advantage of its observer status at ECOSOC. We were also one of the first members of the World Water Council. We published about transboundary waters, we organized workshops, participated in conferences. In short, we were one of the organisations that were promoters of the United Nations Convention on International Watercourses. That was in the early years. As of 2006, we recognised the limits of the work that we did in the first decade on the issue, and we formed a partnership with the WWF. We were the first partner of WWF in the global initiative on the UN Watercourses Convention. To come back to that, what type of activities are you undertaking to expand the number of States Parties to the Convention? So really I think it's >> from this moment on when we worked together and we were able to leverage our respective networks. The network of the WWF is even larger than that of the Green Cross. Green Cross is in 27 countries and the WWF is in even more countries. And we started organizing seminars, workshops in a number of countries. These included seminars, workshops, advocacy efforts for multiple stakeholders. So this is an important contribution. It was innovative at the time, since it reunited all stakeholders who may have an interest in adhesion to the United Nations Convention on International Watercourses, and in its implementation, of course. So we worked in the capital cities and sometimes in the towns where there were the headquarters of regional organizations, we worked in Africa with ECOWAS, we worked with lots of transboundary basin organizations. I am thinking in particular of WWF in East Africa, with SADC, for example. And each time we were supported by the administrations to encourage knowledge of and evaluation of this legal instrument. And it must be said that these efforts were extremely welcome. They were extremely welcome. I think it can be said that our organizations, joined by several other organizations, including Universities, such as the University of Dundee, such as the University of Geneva and several eminent jurists who also promoted the Convention. But there is more to it. Many organizations that were there at the beginning, did not know their role, did not have a clear mandate. I am thinking of more political organizations, governmental organizations such as the IUCN, for example, UNESCO, UNDP, and UNEP. So ultimately these are organizations that did not have an official mandate and who were made up of States Parties, Member States, States that did not want them to play this role, but who had made important contributions raising awareness. So there were those who were openly promoting and those who made an extremely useful and political contribution. And today, the UN Convention is in force. It came into force almost 20 years after it was adopted at the United Nations. It now has 36 States Parties. It needed 35 to come into force. It is still too little, of course. And another extremely important development has happened since. International water law has continued to develop, has continued to deepen, has dealt with the issue of aquifers. And of course the amendment of the Helsinki 1992 UNECE Convention, which has been ratified by countries beyond that region. And so it all reflects an evolution that is obviously extremely positive, placing greater emphasis on the importance of the legal policy that must be applied in the basins. And today, we continue to do a very similar job, with the secretariat of the the UNECE Convention, we have had much discussion with the States Parties to the two Conventions, with many lawyers who agree that the two Conventions have a great deal in common. And here, the situation is a little less known. There are two similar Conventions. There are countries who are not party to either and ask if they have to ratify both? Why? That's a challenge. And at the same time, it's also fairly easy to ratify both at the same time. So we are in this phase where we continue our efforts. Recently, there was a very large meeting In Latin America, where there are currently no States Parties to either Convention. Now we are working together to move these issues forward. >> Thank you Marie-Laure for your contribution which highlighted how civil society has contributed to the promotion and development of of international water law. In the sequences which follow, we will continue to look at the evolution of international water law with a specific interest in the case of groundwater. [MUSIC]
