Ed Couzens and Meda Couzens
One of the world’s most water-stressed regions is Southern Africa, where the problems of relative water scarcity are compounded by extreme levels of poverty and underdevelopment. In such a situation, states in the Southern African Development Community (SADC) region would be expected at least to have water-related rights in their constitutions and even to provide constitutional imperatives to conserve water. Strangely, however, some do not contain any water-related provisions at all. Amongst those that do, a variety of approaches are taken to the common problem that is water scarcity. This chapter initiates the exploration of this vast topic by canvassing the position in each of the SADC member states (and Kenya) and then considers the different types of right each state has chosen to provide. The conclusion stresses the differences between the varied approaches taken by SADC member states, and the implications of these, and contains suggestions for further research. Keywords: Chapter 2 (Couzens and Couzens): Constitutional provisions, human rights, access to water, fundamental water-right, South African states, ecocentrism
Edited by Tim Stephens and Ed Couzens
Edited by Ed Couzens and Tim Stephens
Ed Couzens, Alexander Paterson and Sophie Riley
This chapter begins with an explanation of the various threats facing, first, marine biodiversity and, second, biodiversity in forests. Both suffer from numerous threats and from the increased cumulative impact of these threats. The chapter then considers the legal framework for governance of marine biodiversity, explaining that there have been four major documents or instruments which have driven this legal development more than have any others: Huig de Groot’s pamphlet Mare Liberum, published in 1609; the judgment in 1898 of the arbitral tribunal in the Bering Sea Fur Seals Arbitration; the Proclamation by US President Truman in 1945 of a ‘Policy with Respect to Coastal Fisheries in Certain Areas of the High Seas’; and finally the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) (adopted 1982, entered into force 1994). A fifth may soon be adopted – if current efforts toward a global convention on the protection of biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction are successful. In addition to these, there are hundreds of relevant international instruments, of global, regional and bilateral scope. In contrast, it is explained, there is little international regulation of forests, with many of the most relevant instruments being of a non-binding nature, such as the Forest Principles of 1992. In the face of this absence of regulatory instruments, recourse must be had to instruments of a more general nature. In conclusion, similarities and differences are highlighted between the regulatory regimes for forests and the marine environment, and it is noted that while one is arguably over-, and the other under-, regulated, neither is having the desired effect, and biodiversity is declining in both. That neither approach is working effectively is instructive, and a topic worth further study.