[MUSIC] [MUSIC] [MUSIC] Hello. Cooperation over transboundary water resources takes different forms. I would like to begin by highlighting the contribution made by the 1997 Convention on the Law of the Non-Navigational Uses of International Watercourses which contains two provisions about cooperation. The first is contained in the section dealing with principles, Article 8 and is titled General obligation to cooperate. So what are the provisions under the General obligation to cooperate section? In the first paragraph, it affirms that States bordering an international watercourse should cooperate to ensure equitable and reasonable use but also to ensure the river is protected. So we can see these two elements. It is not only about use but it is also about environmental protection of the watercourse. The second paragraph recommends that the riparian States set up joint commissions and mechanisms that include riparian parties. And it is interesting to note that in these provisions, Article 8 of the Convention refers to the fundamental principles of international law such as territorial integrity, the principles of good faith and also the mutual benefit for States to cooperate over transboundary water resources. Another provision of the 1997 Convention deals with the management of watercourses. Within this framework of transboundary water resources management, States are also invited to set up joint bodies. And it is interesting to note that, returning to what I said earlier about Article 8, that the Convention affirms that riparian States must also take into account the regional experiences of basin organizations that already exist. Therefore, Article 24 of the Convention on the the management of the watercourse also encourages joint commissions or mechanisms to be established. Of course, cooperation can take different forms. It may be more close in certain international watercourses. And in this context, it is interesting to mention the Helsinki Convention on Transboundary Watercourses and International Lakes where the reference to cooperation was more advanced than in the 1997 Convention. Here it is mentioned that the riparian parties must establish bilateral, multilateral agreements or arrangements based on the reciprocity and equality of States along an international watercourses or international lakes. And so the Convention goes even further, demands more. Article 9.2 affirms that States are required to establish joint mechanisms on international watercourses. And the Convention gives details, gives a list of the possible functions of these basin organizations. This list is only indicative and not exhaustive. Among the list of functions for these basin organizations, there is joint monitoring on water quality or joint research and development projects or warning and monitoring systems in the event of water pollution or other crises that could damage riparian States. Therefore, in addition to the obligations of the 1997 Convention and the obligations affirmed in the 1992 Convention, there is a whole host of other forms of cooperation over transboundary water resources. I will give three examples. The first example relates to the Danube Commission. In this case, a decision-making body exists that adopts the obligatory decisions that have been voted for by States. The Commission can revise Annex 2 on substances and activities that can cause environmental damage to the watercourse and even if the riparian States adopt legislation on water quality, States should take appropriate measures to take on board the recommendations of the Danube Commission. There is also the Rhine Commission. So this Commission replaced the 1963 body (today we have the 1999 Bern Convention that established a Commission) and as time passes the functions of the Rhine Commission have increased. In particular, during the 1970s, the Rhine Commission adopted Conventions on chemical pollution and on chloride pollution. Again I would like to mention the case of the Mekong Commission which sets up three different bodies. A council takes all the political decisions and implements the strategies of the Mekong Commission. Next there is the committee which is the executive body of the Mekong Commission, and there is a secretariat. The Mekong Commission is a particularly interesting example. It can adopt regulations on water use or on water transfers between basins or regulations on the notification of planned measures. Another aspect that I would like to highlight about the Mekong Commission is the exchange of information within the Commission. Therefore, States should provide information linked to activities on the Mekong River and the parties must reach an agreement within the Commission on the establishment of these projects. So to conclude, I would like to highlight a Latin American case, specifically the Rio de la Plata Commission and the Administrative Commission of the River Uruguay. We have already spoken about the Administrative Commission of the River Uruguay and the case of the Pulp Mills, and therefore to recall the words of the International Court of Justice, the basin organizations play an essential role in the implementation of of legal instruments relating to international watercourses. Also they can play a role in the settlement of disputes, and in reconciliation between States. This is the case for the Rio de la Plata Convention and the Statute of the River Uruguay. They have the power to set standards for water quality. This is the case of the Administrative Commission of the River Uruguay. So my conclusion. Basin organizations can really be compared to international organizations as they have been given special functions. And in this presentation, I have focused on a particular form of cooperation, which is the establishment of basin organizations. Soon you will learn about other aspects of cooperation. Thank you. [MUSIC] [MUSIC]