A summary of this committee meeting is not yet available.
Taking Parliament to People, and People to Parliament
The aim of this report is to summarise the main events at the meeting and identify the key role players. This report is not a verbatim transcript of proceedings.
LAND AND ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS SELECT COMMITTEE
2 October 2001
REVISED PROTOCOL ON SHARED WATERCOURSES IN THE SOUTHERN AFRICAN DEVELOPMENT REGION: DELIBERATIONS
Chairperson: Rev. P. Moatshe
Documents handed out:
Explanatory Memorandum and Protocol: Revised Protocol on Shared Watercourses in the Southern African Development Region (Department of Water Affairs and Forestry)
The Select Committee was briefed on the Revised Protocol on Shared Watercourses in the SADC region, which had the objective of fostering closer co-operation in the management, protection and utilization of shared watercourses and advancing the SADC agenda of regional integration and poverty alleviation. After Members had a chance to comment and ask questions, the Select Committee agreed to unanimously recommend the ratification of the Protocol. The Chairperson then mentioned the Agricultural Research Amendment Bill and the Committee decided not to debate the Bill. The Select Committee concluded the meeting with discussion on an upcoming international visit.
Rev. P. Moatshe (ANC), opened the meeting and stated that the issue on the agenda was consideration of the Revised Protocol on Shared Watercourse Systems in the Southern African Development Community (Revised Protocol). The Chairperson introduced Mr Mathipa, who would brief the Committee on the Revised Protocol and welcomed Mr M. MacKenzie, a Member of Provincial Parliament from KwaZulu-Natal.
Revised Protocol on Shared Watercourses
Mr K. Mathipa, Director of Legal Services at the Department of Agriculture, stated that he had not prepared a formal presentation but would provide a brief background and introduction to the Revised Protocol and answer any questions Committee Members might have. He proceeded to trace the history of the regulation of shared watercourses. He touched on the negotiation of the United Nations Convention on the Non-navigational use of Shared Watercourses (UN Convention) and stated that, although South Africa had ratified it, the UN Convention had not yet come into effect. He stated that the principal SADC Protocol was drafted based on the UN Convention and added that part of the need for the revision was to align the SADC Protocol more closely with the UN Convention. The SADC Protocol was signed by all SADC countries except the Democratic Republic of the Congo in August 2000 and was in need of ratification.
Having provided the background to the Revised Protocol, Mr Mathipa proceeded to discuss the objectives. He stated that the objective of the Revised Protocol was fostering co-operation in the management, protection and utilization of shared watercourses and advancing the SADC agenda of regional integration and poverty alleviation. He stated that South Africa shared various bodies of water with neighbouring countries and added that it was necessary to ensure the sustainable use of the region's water resources because the availability of water was decreasing while the demand for water was increasing. He then proceeded to briefly mention the provisions made in the Protocol for dealing with adverse effects which crossed state boundaries, institutional framework for implementation, shared watercourse agreements and settlement of disputes. He stated that the Revised Protocol would establish an integrated water management system, help in poverty alleviation and move towards achieving the goals of the New Africa Initiative. He concluded by reiterating that water was important for development and adding that there was a need to make the SADC Protocol operational.
Mr K. Mokoena (ANC) asked if there were any reasons why South Africa did not sign the Protocol and asked if the reservations were now removed. He also wanted to know how the average person would benefit from the signing of the Protocol.
Mr Mathipa replied that South Africa did sign the Protocol but had yet to ratify it. He added that the five countries listed in his presentation were the countries that had ratified the Protocol. He stated that the ordinary person might not see the benefits of the Protocol and added that the Protocol had the long-term goal of managing the demand and supply of water. He stated that the Protocol would make water available for basic needs and added that it was difficult to say at the outset what benefits there would be for the average person.
Ms B. Thompson (ANC) stated that Mr Mathipa had mentioned that the UN Convention was not yet in operation because the minimum number of countries had not ratified it. She asked why ratifications were delayed.
Mr Mathipa replied that the UN Convention confronted delays because there were differences among the many countries involved. He stated that the delay in making the UN Convention operational was because, although all countries except the Democratic Republic of the Congo had signed the Convention, only five had ratified the Convention.
Mr M. MacKenzie (Member of Provincial Parliament, KwaZulu-Natal) asked how harmony with other countries with less advanced regulatory systems would take place given the strength of South Africa's Water Act.
Mr Mathipa replied that South Africa would have little to do with harmonisation because water regulation in South Africa was already advanced. He added that the burden of harmonisation would be on the countries that did not have an advanced water regulation system.
Mr R. Nyakane (UDM) asked for a clarification on the distinction between signing and ratifying a Protocol. He then stated that the document indicated no organizational and personal implications of the proposed amendment that could not be dealt with through existing resources. He thought it implied that financial implications were within the Department's capacity.
Mr Mathipa replied that the signing of the Protocol indicated an interest to be bound by the Protocol while ratification would make the Protocol legally binding. Referring to the question on the financial implications of the Protocol, he stated that the Protocol would not create new institutions and would not require anything beyond what had already been budgeted for. He stated that the bilateral agreements on water might have financial implications but that those implications would not be from the Protocol.
Ms A. Versfeld (DP) stated that her understanding was that there was no need to change the South African Water Act.
Mr Mathipa confirmed that there would be no need to change South African laws because the laws were already compliant with the principles of the Protocol. However, there would be a need for other countries to examine their laws.
Mr Windvoel (ANC) said that the SADC member states differed in their use of water and asked how the Protocol would ensure that sanitary standards of water flowing between South Africa and its neighbours would measure up to South African standards. He also wanted to know how equitable sharing of water would be ensured.
Mr Mathipa responded that the Protocol would regulate water management, its quality and quantity.
Mr Nyakane commented on the complexity of the process and stated that the UN Convention had not yet been put into action and wanted to know why countries were afraid to ratify the Convention.
Mr Mathipa replied that he did not know why other countries did not ratify the UN Convention. He stated that the UN Convention had differential impacts on countries and added that some countries might have concerns over ratifying the Convention because of these impacts.
Mr Windvoel stated that there was a need to be proactive and added that ways should be found to assist one another and establish cooperative relationships on sharing expertise and hygienic standards.
Mr Mathipa stated that the exchange of information was a matter to be followed up.
Mr Mokoena stated that the principles of the Protocol should make sure that there would be equitable and sustainable water use.
Mr Mathipa replied that allocations would be made based on needs and added that donour money was now closely tied to environmental protection and awareness.
The Chairperson asked how the Protocol would affect those who would want to build dams and also wanted to know if there were any contradictions between the UN Convention and the SADC Protocol.
Mr Mathipa responded that building of dams on shared watercourses would have to be done by notifying the other countries involved. He stated that other countries would have six months to respond after receiving the notice of plans to build a dam. Referring to the question on contradictions between the UN Convention and the SADC Protocol, he stated that there were no contradictions and added that the only aspect of such was that the Protocol dealt with the issue of access to information differently. He stated that the SADC Protocol obliged countries to supply available information whereas the UN Convention stated that, if the information was not available, it obliged the country to gather the information.
Ms Thompson asked how river water would be managed.
Mr Mathipa replied that rivers were managed through integrated water resource management. He stated that rivers could be managed through diversion, dams and other measures that would regulate activities on the river.
The Chairperson stated that the Committee Members had adequately interrogated Mr Mathipa and received satisfactory replies. He asked if the Committee agreed to recommend that the Protocol be ratified.
The Select Committee unanimously agreed to recommend the ratification of the Revised Protocol on Shared Watercourses in the Southern African Development Region.
Agricultural Research Amendment Bill
The Chairperson stated that the Agricultural Research Amendment Bill was a Section 75 Bill and asked Committee Members if the Committee should debate it or make a statement.
The Select Committee unanimously agreed to make a statement.
International Visit by the Select Committee
The Chairperson stated that there was an upcoming international visit for five of the Select Committee Members. He stated that, according to the formula, three of the five persons on the team would have to be ANC members and two would be opposition party members. He stated that, from the NNP, Mr A. Van Niekerk had been nominated.
Ms J. Vilakazi (IFP) stated that according to the parliamentary formula, a five-member team should consist of three ANC members and two opposition members, of which one would be an IFP member and the other a DP or NNP member.
Dr Conroy asked what would happen to the formula if it were a three-member team.
The Chairperson stated that it was up to the Select Committee to function as a team and that the Committee should cooperate and give opportunities to Committee Members who had not had the chance to go overseas.
Ms Thompson asked if the Chairperson was saying that ANC members should give their privilege to others, and, if so, she stated that it would be impossible.
The Chairperson stated that he had not intended for ANC members to give their privilege to others but had only wanted to give chances to ANC members who had not traveled.
Mr Mokoane stated that the issue was sorting out who would go from the opposition parties and suggested that the opposition parties be allowed to reach agreement amongst themselves.
Ms Versfeld stated that the formula was not fair and suggested that the Committee look at the participation and attendance of members. She stated that if the formula was used every time there was an opportunity for a visit, members from small parties would never get a chance to go and gave Mr Nyakane from UDM as an example of an active member of the Committee who would be denied the opportunity of overseas visits.
Mr Windvoel stated that the team would consist of three ANC members and added that the opposition party members should sort out the other two members of the team on their own.
Mr D. Kgware (ANC) stated that, if the opposition party members could not come up with two names to be added to the team, the Chairperson could pick names from the register.
Dr Conroy stated that, since 1999, there had been two international trips with one including a DP member and the other including an IFP member. He suggested that opposition members on this visit consist of one NNP member and one UDM member.
The Chairperson stated that it appeared as though a consensus had been reached.
Ms Vilakazi said that the Committee Members should do the right thing and suggested that the Chief Whips be consulted for clarification on the formula to be used.
The Chairperson stated that the matter was closed and asked that the names of persons who would be going on the international visit be given to the Committee Secretary.
Dr Conroy stated that there had also been a plan to visit the Katse Dam in Lesotho and asked if it was still possible.
The Chairperson said that the Committee did not have the funds for the visit.
Dr Conroy suggested that the Committee could approach Minister R. Kasrils concerning funds for the visit.
The Chairperson stated that the matter would be looked into, and the meeting was adjourned.
The copyright in this material subsists with the Contact Trust. Further distribution or copying of this material is prohibited without the prior agreement of the Contact Trust.
Presentation to the Parliamentary Portfolio Committee on Water Affairs and Forestry on 19 September 2001
REVISED PROTOCOL ON SHARED WATERCOURSES
By F. Ngoatje, Director: International Liaison, Department of Water Affairs and Forestry
The core business of the Department of Water Affairs and Forestry is to protect, conserve, develop, utilise and manage our precious water resources.
The Department of Water Affairs and Forestry (DWAF) has recognised the importance of international issues and a Directorate for International Liaison was established in 1 999 to, inter alia, facilitate and co-ordinate negotiations with our neighbouring states on water resources. Many of the rivers of South Africa are shared with neighbouring countries and international co-operation is essential. This is part of the water resource management function of the department.
2. THE SHARING OF WATER RESOURCES WITH NEIGHBOURING STATES
A thorough review of the theme of "Sharing Water Resources in Southern Africa" warrants a discussion of the following:
· The Shared Water Basins of both Southern Africa, and South Africa
· SADC Protocol on Shared Watercourse Systems
· Regional water resource initiatives and processes
· Southern African Vision for Water
· The Role of Water South Africa
Shared Water Basins of Southern Africa
The shared water basins of Southern Africa are the following:
· Ravuma and Cunene
The Southern African region is characterised by a relative wet north and a relative dry south.
The difference in availability of water between the different countries holds the potential for both co-operation and conflict. A very important concept that should be discussed is the so-called concept of virtual water. This concept simply states that it is more economic to import food from the relatively wet areas to the relatively dry areas than to transfer water to the dry areas for food production.
This will create opportunities for the development of the water resources of our neighbours to the North and the East. The potential for the further development of water resources in the Southern African context is still very large and will be a key element of the New Africa Initiative.
Shared Water Basins of South Africa
The four shared water basins of South Africa are:
· Orange River
· Limpopo River
· Incomati River
· Maputo River
These four rivers drain about 60 % of the land area and contribute 32 % of the surface runoff. These rivers represent the most developed transboundary watercourses in the SADC region and in several cases the demand already exceeds the availability of water.
A number of formal "Joint Water Commissions" and less formal "Joint Technical Committees" has been established to discuss and negotiate issues of common interest or to manage the water resources or Implement joint development projects.
The best known is the Lesotho Highlands Water Commission, which is responsible for the overall management of the Lesotho Highlands Water Project. Two agencies have been established to implement the project, namely:
· The Lesotho Highlands Development Authority (LHDA) to implement the components of the project in Lesotho; and
· The Trans Caledon Tunnel Authority (TCTA) to implement the components in the RSA.
A project like the Lesotho Highlands Water Project means much more than water - it is at the heart of the New Africa Initiative .. providing jobs, training, development, inspiration and pride to the people of Africa.
In the Incomati Basin the institutional set-up is a little different, and maybe more efficient and more in line with the SADC strive towards regional integration. A Joint Water Commission between RSA and Swaziland oversees the implementation of the Komati Basin Project. The design, construction, operation and maintenance of the two dams (one in RSA and one in Swaziland) has been entrusted to a Bi-National Authority. the Komati Basin development Authority (KOBWA). The water supplied by the project is mainly for irrigation development of small-scale farmers in both countries and therefore directly in line with the goals of SADC. The needs of Mozambique and the environment are also taken into account.
The Orange Senqu Commission (ORASECOM) has been established between South Africa, Lesotho, Botswana and Namibia to manage the Orange River.
The Limpopo River Commission will be established soon between South Africa, Botswana, Zimbabwe and Mozambique to manage the Limpopo River.
One or two commissions between South Africa, Swaziland and Mozambique to manage the Incomati and Maputo Rivers are also envisaged.
Potential elements, which create conflict between the countries, need to be addressed by these commissions. These conflicts can be caused by the following:
· Population growth putting greater demands on the water resources;
· Differences in the stage of development, for example the water resources in RSA are well developed while those in Mozambique are under developed;
· Incompatible goals between the countries;
· Incompatible legislation;
· Differences in environmental standards and
· Differences in technological approaches.
SADC Protocol on Shared Watercourse Systems
The SADC Water Sector Co-ordination Unit (SADC-WSCU) was established by SADC in 1996 to co-ordinate the SADC activities in the water sector. The Water Sector is based in Lesotho and is housed by the Government of Lesotho.
The SADO Protocol on Shared Watercourse Systems was first adopted in 1995 and came into force in September 1998. A Revised or Amended Protocol was signed at the SADC Summit in August 2000.
The Revised or Amended Protocol has the following objectives:
· To promote and facilitate the establishment of shared watercourse agreements and management institutions;
· To advance the sustainable, equitable and reasonable utilisation of shared watercourses;
· To promote a co-ordinated and integrated environmentally sound development and management of shared watercourses;
· To promote harmonisation and monitoring of legislation and policies;
· To promote research and technology development, information exchange, etc.
The following issues are addressed in more detail:
· General guiding principles;
· Specific provisions regarding planning of water resource developments, environmental protection and preservation, management of shared watercourses, prevention and mitigation of harmful conditions and emergency situations;
· Institutional framework for implementation, defining the SADC water sector institutions as well as Shared Watercourse Institutions;
· Shared Watercourse Agreements;
· Settlement of disputes.
The SADC Protocol on Shared Watercourse Systems will set the framework for future water resource development and management in our shared watercourses. The Protocol can be used as an instrument for the New African Initiative for our region and can be used as an example for the rest of Africa.
Regional Water Resource Initiatives and Processes
One of the main drives of the SADC Water Sector is the SADC Water Sector Regional Strategic Action Plan. A total of 31 projects have been identified and prioritised and the International Donor Community is currently being approached for funding.
Other SADC Water Sector initiatives, which have already been implemented, are:
· The Zambesi River Action Plan'
· The SADC Hydrological Cycle Observing System (SADC-HYCOS);
· Development of a Southern African Water Vision;
Southern African Vision for Water
The SADC Ministers of Water accepted the following Vision Statement in December 1999 in Arusha Tanzania.
Equitable and sustainable utilisation of water for social, environmental justice, and economic benefit for present and future generations.
The management of the water resources of Africa should aim for:
· Equitable and Sustainable Social and Economic Development in Africa
· Equitable Access to Water of an Acceptable Quantity and Quality
· Proper Sanitation for All and Safe Waste Disposal
· Food Security for all Households
· Energy Security for All Households
· A Sustainable Environment
· Security from Natural Disasters
· Integrated Water Resources Management
The Vision should be embraced by all of us as a first and necessary step towards achieving the New Africa Initiative.
EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM ON THE RATIFICATION OF THE REVISED PROTOCOL ON SHARED WATERCOURSES IN THE SOUTHERN AFRICAN DEVELOPMENT REGION
To obtain Parliamentary approval for the ratification of the Revised Protocol on Shared Watercourses in the Southern African Development Community (hereinafter referred to as the "Revised Protocol") during the current session of Parliament.
2.1 The process of amending the Protocol on Shared Watercourse Systems in the Southern African Development Community (hereinafter referred to as the 'Protocol") started shortly after the signing of the Protocol on 25 August 1995 and before it became effective in 1997. South Africa signed and ratified the aforementioned Protocol.
2.2 During the negotiation process the Parties agreed that a more practical and elegant way to present the amendments was by means of a consolidated version, which was more comprehensible and easy to work with than an Amendment Protocol. This method entailed a repeal of the existing Protocol to ensure that there is no multiplicity of legal regimes applicable to individual member states at one time, while at the same time recognising that rights and obligations emanating from the Protocol may not be terminated on the coming into affect of the replacement instrument. The Revised Protocol aligns the Protocol with the Convention on the Law of Non-Navigational Uses of International Watercourses (hereinafter referred to as the UN Convention). embracing the basic principles thereof and paying particular attention to the environmental protection of the water resources and current ecological concerns, while at the same time ensuring that the Revised Protocol remains a genuine SADC instrument, which articulates and serves the region's needs. The Revised Protocol was adopted by the Ministers Summit on 7 August 2000. All the countries of SADC, with the exception of the Democratic Republic of Congo, signed the Revised Protocol.
2.3 The Ratification of the Revised protocol was approved by the Cabinet on 16 May 2001.
2.4 As the text of the Revised Protocol originates substantially from other international instruments that South Africa has already ratified, there should be no objection to its ratification.
3.1.1 The process of amending the Protocol started shortly after the signing of the
Protocol on 25 August 1995 and before it became effective in 1997. South
Africa signed and ratified the aforementioned Protocol.
3.1.2 Two main catalytic factors have contributed significantly to the conviction and momentum for the amended process, namely-
a) the adoption of the UN Convention after lengthy debates and negotiations spanning seven years. The process of negotiations of the UN Convention served as an eye opener to many states in the world. including SADC Member States. on current concerns in water resource management and strategies adopted to address those concerns; and
b) the establishment by SADC in 1996 of the SADC Water Sector Co-ordination Unit (the Water Sector), Since its establishment the Water Sector has undertaken various studies and research activities, which have heightened visibility on the region's water resource problems and underscored the need for the adoption of more responsive and dynamic region wide approached to water resource management.
3.1.3 A series of workshops have been held between April 1997 and 31 March 2000 to negotiate the amendment of the Protocol and the consensus that has emerged from all the workshops reflects the unequivocal intention of Member States to establish a Protocol. which is more closely aligned with the UN Convention, embracing the basic principles thereof and paying particular attention to the environmental protection of the water resources and current ecological concerns. while at the same time ensuring that the Protocol remains a genuine SADC instrument, which articulates and serves the region's needs. South Africa has also signed and ratified the UN Convention. The UN Convention has not come into operation as yet.
3.1.4 Both the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs and a representative of the Department of Justice attended the SADC Legal Sector Committee meeting in June 2000. At this meeting the Committee duly considered the version incorporating the Protocol on Shared Watercourse Systems and the Amendment thereto.
3.1.5 During the negotiation process the Parties agreed that a more practical and elegant way to present the amendments was by means of a consolidated version, which- was more comprehensible and easy to work with than an Amendment Protocol It was also agreed that this method entails a repeal of the existing Protocol to ensure that there is no multiplicity of legal regimes applicable to individual member states at one time. while at the same time recognising that rights and obligations emanating from the Protocol may not be terminated on the coming into affect of the replacement instrument.
3.1.6 The Revised Protocol was adopted by the Summit on 7 August 2000. All the countries signed the Revised Protocol except the Democratic Republic of Congo.
3.2. Objectives and implications of the Revised Protocol
The Protocol is self-executing and consistent with South Africa's domestic legislation and Constitution and no amendment of legislation is required.
3.2.1 Article 1
This Article contains definitions. The most important changes to the definitions of the Protocol are:
a) 'Watercourse". which means a system of surface or ground waters consisting by virtue of their physical relationship a unitary whole flowing into a common terminus such as a sea lake or aquifer. The UN Convention moved away from the concept of "river basin" and the Revised Protocol followed suit. The River Basin concept based on geography ignores the fundamental fact that the problems of the utilisation of water resources today involves economic and political factors that transcend the limits of drainage basins.
b) 'Shared watercourse", which means a watercourse passing through or forming the border between two or more Watercourse States. This definition is unique to the Revised protocol and does not appear in either the UN Convention or the Revised Protocol.
c) Definitions for "environmental use", "significant harm" and "State Party" are included in the Revised Protocol, which is unique to the Revised Protocol.
d) The definition of "Pollution of a Shared Watercourse" originates from Article 21(1) of the UN Convention.
e) The definition of "Regulation of the flow of the waters of a shared watercourse" originates from Article 25(3) from the UN Convention.
3.2.2 Article 2
The overall objective of the Revised Protocol is to foster closer co-operation in the management, protection and utilisation of shared watercourses and to advance the SADC agenda of regional integration and poverty alleviation. This objective will be achieved through -
a) the establishment of shared watercourse institutions;
b) the advancement of sustainable, equitable and reasonable utilisation of shared watercourses by Watercourse States;
c) the promotion of a co-ordinated and integrated environmentally sound development and management of shared watercourses;
d) the promotion of the hamornisation and monitoring of legislation and policies for planning, development, conservation, protection of shared watercourses and the allocation of resources thereof, and
e) the promotion of research and technology development, information exchange, capacity building, and the application of appropriate technologies in shared watercourses management.
3.2.3 Article 3
Article 3 contains a set of general principles. Sub-Articles 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 originates from the Protocol. In order to align the previous text with the UN Convention Sub-Articles 7, 8, 10 were taken from the UN Convention.
The main general principles are:
a) The unity and coherence of each shared watercourse;
b) Equitable and reasonable utilisation of the shared water resources:
c) Obligation not to cause significant harm to other watercourse states and where harm is nevertheless caused. the water course state which caused the harm has a duty to eliminate or mitigate the harm caused and in appropriate circumstances discuss compensation;
d) Non discrimination on the basis of nationality in recognising rights to claim for damage caused; and
e) Regular exchange of available information and data on the hydrological, hydrogeological, water quality, meteorological and environmental condition of shared watercourses.
3.2.4 Article 4
Article 4 contains provisions relating to where one Watercourse State plans measures in its territory that may have a significant adverse effect in the territory, of another Watercourse State. This Article obliged Watercourse States to notify other Watercourse States of any planned measures that may have a significant adverse effect on that State Party, to communicate information on the planned measure and to consult the other State Party. This section was taken verbatim from the UN Convention in order to align the Protocol with the UN Convention.
3.2.5 Article 5
Article 5 contains the institutional framework for implementation. Most of the institutions are already in place and some of the existing institutions can be transformed into appropriate institutions in terms of the Revised Protocol such as Watercourse Commissions.
3.2.6 Article 6
Article 6 relates to shared watercourse agreements. This Article was taken almost verbatim from the UN Convention. Shared Watercourse Agreements should take cognisance e of the provisions of the Revised Protocol. However the provisions of the Revised Protocol shall not affect the rights or obligations of a Watercourse State arising from agreements in force before the date it becomes a party to the Revised Protocol.
3.2.7 Article 7
Article 7 relates to the settlement of disputes. State Parties must strive to resolve disputes amicably in accordance with the principles enshrined in Article 4 of the SADC Treaty, and if not possible, refer it to the Tribunal of the Community, which is established in terms of section 16 of the SADC Treaty.
3.2.8 Entry into force
The Revised Protocol shall enter into force 30 days after the deposit of the instrument of ratification by two-thirds of the Member States of SADC.
4. ORGANISATIONAL AND PERSONNEL IMPLICATIONS
The proposed amendment has no organisational or personnel implications that cannot be dealt with through existing resources.
Considering the cost implications of the servicing and implementing the Revised protocol the following must be borne in mind:
a) The Revised Protocol is an amendment of the existing Protocol;
b) The amendment is substantially based on the UN Convention on Non-Navigational Uses of International \\'atercourses. which South Africa had already ratified and the cost implication for implementing the provisions of the UN Convention therefore has already been taken into account:
c) The Revised Protocol will be the overarching framework within which other water sharing agreements will be concluded. The financial implications for the Department will not so much stem from the Revised protocol, but from other bilateral and multilateral water sharing agreements. The existing bilateral and multilateral institutions will be transformed to be institutional structures under the Revised protocol. The financial implication of these bilateral committees and structures depend on the permanency of the structure and the international agreement in terms of which they are created.
The Revised Protocol will therefore have no immediate foreseen financial implications that cannot be dealt with throu2h existing resources.
6. OTHER IMIPLICATIONS
The Revised protocol is self-executing and in conformity with the constitution and the domestic legislation
7. DOCUMENTS ATTACHED
7.1 The Revised Protocol on Shared Watercourses
7.2 Cabinet Approval
7.3 The legal opinion of the Chief State Law Adviser (International Law)
7.4 The legal opinion of the Chief State Law Adviser of the Department of Justice
No related documents
- We don't have attendance info for this committee meeting
Download as PDF
You can download this page as a PDF using your browser's print functionality. Click on the "Print" button below and select the "PDF" option under destinations/printers.
See detailed instructions for your browser here.