Transboundary Wetlands: Exploring Formal Mechanisms for Cooperation

AN ABSTRACT OF THE THESIS OF

Zoe Rosenblum for the degree of Master of Science in Water Resources Policy and Management presented on December 15, 2020.

Title: Transboundary Wetlands: Exploring Formal Mechanisms for Cooperation

Abstract approved: ______

Susanne Schmeier

Despite increased understanding of the benefits of wetlands, global wetland area continues to decrease. Wetlands are being lost at an alarming rate, and with them, biodiversity, floodwater storage, water purification, and countless other functions. There is little information available about mechanisms to manage transboundary wetlands. While the Ramsar Convention is one international mechanism for wetland governance, there are very few cases in which all riparian parties have jointly designated a Transboundary Ramsar Site. Most research on transboundary wetlands explores specific conflicts or management issues or argues for or against the Ramsar Convention as a legal tool to manage wetlands. However, little research explores institutions for managing transboundary wetlands. Furthermore, while there is much evidence that freshwater resources are a source of cooperation, there is emphasis on rivers and wetlands are largely absent from the discourse. This research employs document analysis, coding, and spatial analysis to explore how transboundary wetlands are managed. The products of this research are: a database of the world’s transboundary wetlands; an in-depth analysis of the management of the Wadden Sea, Okavango Delta, and the Hamoun Wetlands; and a discussion of factors that may contribute to cooperation over transboundary wetlands.

Transboundary Wetlands: Exploring Formal Mechanisms for Cooperation

by Zoe Rosenblum

A THESIS

submitted to

Oregon State University

in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Master of Science

Presented December 15, 2020 Commencement June 2021

THIS THESIS HAS ALSO BEEN SUBMITTED TO

IHE-Delft Institute for Water Education, The Netherlands

and the

University for Peace, Costa Rica

in partial fulfillment of

the requirements for the

degree of

Master of Science (IHE-Delft)

and Master of Arts (University for Peace)

in Water Cooperation and Diplomacy

Master of Science thesis of Zoe Rosenblum presented on December 15, 2020

APPROVED:

______

Major Professor, representing Water Resources Policy and Management

______

Director of the Water Resources Graduate Program

______

Dean of the Graduate School

I understand that my thesis will become part of the permanent collection of Oregon State University libraries. My signature below authorizes release of my thesis to any reader upon request.

______

Zoe Rosenblum, Author

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to extend gratitude to:

Dr. Susanne Schmeier. Your professionalism, eloquence and aptitude for making connections is inspiring. I am grateful for the many conversations we shared and am honored to witness your level of expertise in comprehension of international laws and organizations.

Dr. Aaron Wolf. It is clear how deeply you care about the success of your students. Thank you for your support throughout, particularly discussing my research during our field course. I forgive you for not stopping at the most beautiful wetland overlook in Malyeur.

Dr. Olivia Sylvester, possibly the most energetic professor I’ve had. Thank you for offering hands-on learning experiences and welcoming all students to the UPeace Garden. Though the grasshoppers sometimes eat more produce than the students, the garden is a peaceful and grounding refuge that offers a welcome balance to more intellectual work.

My WCD friends. Our cohort was small and I appreciate the energy you each brought to the program. Thank you for sharing your selves and your expertise throughout this journey.

The students I met along the way at UPeace, IHE-Delft, and OSU, who brought much joy to my life. Potlucks, waterfall hikes, learning to cook new foods together, learning new languages and card tricks, empowering each other, and enriching our collective understanding of what it means to be human. My roomie Jo who taught me about vitamin D to beat the Delft blues and shared late-night giggles over tea; the IHE Running Club, especially Maubane and Thembi, I would not have thrived in Delft without you; Joy - your little notes, sweet treats, warm hugs, and dinners were some of my favorite moments in grad school; and to all of the rest: thank you.

My mentors – Antonio, Megan, Alyson, Hannah, Alfredo – you are sources of inspiration for me throughout life and especially throughout the ups and downs of Master’s studies. Thank you for words of encouragement and advice, and for nurturing my academic and self-work.

My family and friends – my lifelong sources of support and encouragement. Thank you for visiting, writing letters, sending packages, and keeping in touch, reminding me that closeness exists even with the distance of a joint Master’s program. I can’t imagine accomplishing this thesis without the grounding foundation of your love. To my brother for helping me keep things in perspective; my sister for inspiring me to leave the nest; my Tia Noanie for teaching me about running, spirituality, and financial planning – all of which were key to Master’s studies; and to my parents for bringing me into this world and encouraging me to follow my dreams.

And Frederick. Thank you for supporting me through this Master’s program. While I could have completed this endeavor without knowing you, I would not have eaten as well or laughed as much. Thank you for believing in me when I felt too small, and for sharing your laptop.

Thank you to the sunshine, rain, trees, oceans, rivers and wetlands that are a source of inspiration.

Thank you to the researchers who came before me, and for those who come after.

And thank you to the staff at each of the schools I attended: the University for Peace, IHE-Delft, and OSU. For what I learned over the past year and a half, I am glad that this program exists.

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1. Introduction …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 1 1.1 Research Questions …………………………………………………………………………………………………… 1 1.2 Hypotheses ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 2 1.3 Justification of Research ……………………………………………………………………………………………. 2 1.4 Reflexivity …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 3 2. Literature Review …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 4 2.1 Wetlands …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 4 2.2 Transboundary Wetlands ………………………………………………………………………………………….. 5 2.3 International Law ……………………………………………………………………………………………………… 6 2.4 Transboundary Wetland Management …………………………………………………………………….. 11 2.4.1 Institutions …………………………………………………………………………………………….... 14 2.5 Transboundary Water Interactions ………………………………………………………………………….. 15 2.6 Measuring Cooperation …………………………………………………………………………………………… 16 3. Theoretical Considerations ………………………………………………………………………………………………….…. 18 4. Methods …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 22 4.1 Research Design ………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 22 4.2 Data Collection …………………..……………………………………………………………………………………. 23 4.2.1 Global Analysis …………………………………………………………………………………………. 23 4.2.2 Case Studies …………………………………………………………………………………………….. 24 4.3 Data Analysis …………………………………..………………………………………………………………………. 25 4.3.1 Mechanism for wetland management …………………………………………………….. 25 4.3.2 Focus of wetland management ……………………………………………………………….. 26 4.3.3 Participation of co-riparians in wetland action ………………………………………… 26 4.3.4 Final Analysis …………………………………………………………………………………………… 27 5. Results ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..…. 28 5.1 Global Analysis ………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 28 5.1.1 Identifying transboundary wetlands ………………………………………………………… 28 5.1.2 Options to manage transboundary wetlands …………………………………………… 38 5.2 Case Studies ………………………………………………………….…………………………………………..……. 40 5.2.1 Wadden Sea ……………………………………………………………………………………………. 41

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Page 5.2.2 Okavango Delta ………………………………………………………………………………………. 45 5.2.3 Hamoun Wetlands ………………………………………………………………………………….. 48 5.3 Document Analysis …………………………………………………………………………………………..…….. 52 6. Analysis and Discussion…………………………………………………………………………………………………....……. 54 6.1 Spatial Analysis …………………………………………………………………………………………………..…… 54 6.1.1 Identifying transboundary wetlands ………………………………………………………... 54 6.1.2 Options to manage transboundary wetlands ………………….…………….…………. 55 6.2 Case Studies ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 57 6.2.1 What are options to manage transboundary wetlands? ………………………….. 57 6.2.2 How do countries interact over transboundary wetlands? ………………………. 58 6.3 Document Analysis ………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 60 6.3.1 Documents analyzed for the Wadden Sea ……………………………………………….. 60 6.3.2 Documents analyzed for the Okavango Delta ………………………………………….. 60 6.3.3 Documents analyzed for the Hamoun Wetlands ……………………………………… 61 6.4 Measuring transboundary water cooperation …………………………………………………………. 61 7. Conclusion ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 62 7.1 Limitations of research and recommendations for future research …………………………. 62 7.2 Final Remarks ………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 64 References …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 66 Appendices ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 77

LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page Figures 1. Conceptual framework ………………………………………..………………………………………………………. 21

Figure 2. World map with transboundary river basins and transboundary wetlands ……………………. 38

Figure 3. Map of the Wadden Sea including the associated Ramsar Sites …………………………………….. 42

Figure 4. Map of the Okavango Delta, including the associated Ramsar Sites ………………………………. 46

Figure 5. Map of the Hamoun Wetlands including the associated Ramsar Sites …………………………… 49

Figure 6. Extent of the Hamoun Wetlands (Source: UNDP) …………………………………………………..……… 51

LIST OF TABLES Table Page Table 1. Justification of research …………………………………………………………………………………………….……. 3 Table 2. Number of contracting parties to selected treaties …………………………………………………….….. 10 Table 3. Map layers included in the spatial analysis ………………………………………………………………….….. 24 Table 4. Ramsar Transboundary Wetlands …………………………………………………………………………………... 28 Table 5. Individual Ramsar Sites that cross country borders .………………………………………………………... 30 Table 6. Transboundary wetlands listed by Griffin and Ali (2012) …………………………………………………. 37 Table 7. Transboundary Ramsar Sites identified by spatial analysis ………………………………………………. 38 Table 8. Regional distribution of transboundary wetlands with RBOs …………………………………………… 39 Table 9. Results of SDG 6.5.2 cooperation methodology on Wadden Sea ……………………….……………. 44 Table 10. Results of SDG 6.5.2 cooperation methodology on Okavango Delta ………………….………….. 48 Table 11. Results of SDG 6.5.2 cooperation methodology on Hamoun Wetlands ……………….…………. 51 Table 12. Results of the document analysis ………………………………………………………………………….……….. 52 Table 13. Disaggregated results of the document analysis …………………………………………………….………. 52 Table 14. Regional distribution of transboundary wetlands by Ramsar designation status …….…..…. 54

LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix Page 1. Transboundary Wetland Database …………………………………………………………………………………………… 77 2. Sources of information behind the Transboundary Wetland Database ……………………………………. 89 3. List of documents included in document analysis ……………………………………………………………………. 90 4. Codebook ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 92 5. Interview Questions ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 93 6. IRB Determination .…………………………..……………………………………………………………………………………… 94

Section 1: Introduction

Globally, wetlands are lost at a rate three times higher than that of natural forests (Davidson, 2014). This is a concern because wetlands provide numerous services to the environment and directly benefit humans. The transboundary water cooperation discourse demonstrates that countries are more likely to cooperate over their shared water resources than they are to go to war over them. The driver of this research is curiosity of whether the transboundary water cooperation discourse is an area for transboundary wetlands to enter and expand the discourse.

This research explores the connection between transboundary wetlands and the relations between the riparian countries that share them. The inquiry is driven by the hypothesis that transboundary wetlands, like transboundary rivers, are a source of cooperation between countries. The significance of this research lies within the conundrum of managing scarce water and land resources while balancing goals related to public health, social justice, ecosystem integrity, and economic growth. Resources are predicted to become scarcer as the climate changes and the world population grows. Wetlands are a unique resource that provide many important ecosystem functions that humans benefit from, including mitigating many climate change impacts.

From this research, I expect to gain a better understanding of how formal institutions enable countries to manage transboundary wetlands and to what extent that management is connected to cooperative relations between the riparian countries. My research also investigates the hypothesis that efforts to protect or conserve wetlands are more effective when legal mechanisms reinforce them. I aim to identify qualities of wetland management that are likely to contribute to sustainable wetlands and transboundary cooperation.

1.1 Research Questions

This research develops a conceptual model to evaluate the connection between transboundary wetlands and cooperative relations between the countries that share them. The research is driven by the question, “To what extent do transboundary wetlands influence the tendency of countries towards cooperative relationships?,” which is further informed by the following two sub-questions:

1. What are options to manage transboundary wetlands?

2. How do countries interact over transboundary wetlands?

The proposed research questions make a number of assumptions. The first research question assumes that there is some kind of difference based on what type of management mechanism (formal or informal) is employed in a transboundary wetland and how (unilaterally or jointly). The second question assumes that the driving force behind wetland management – be it economic development or conservation – is important to know. The second research question also assumes that the specific way in which organizations interact with wetlands results in different, measurable outcomes. For example, a written agreement to protect a certain acreage of wetlands without implementation of action on the ground, could be assumed to have no observable benefit to wetlands. The overall research is built on the premise that transboundary wetlands present an opportunity for collaboration. Previous research demonstrates that shared water resources are more often a source of cooperation than conflict (e.g., Wolf et al., 2005), so one could envision that wetlands, too, are a potential source of cooperation.

1.2 Hypotheses

Transboundary wetlands are managed by formal and informal bodies, such as river basin organizations and non-governmental organizations. They can also be managed unilaterally or jointly. I hypothesize that countries that jointly manage shared wetlands are more likely to have cooperative relations, compared to those that manage wetlands unilaterally. More specifically, I hypothesize that the existence of a transboundary wetland enables cooperative relations between the riparian countries – that cooperation over transboundary wetlands leads to further cooperative relationships between the countries.

Given the extensive research on transboundary water cooperation over shared rivers, I would expect to find similar potential for cooperation over transboundary wetlands. I hypothesize that my research will demonstrate that wetlands can be a source of transboundary cooperation.

1.3 Justification of Research

There is extensive research that demonstrates that shared waters are more often a driver of peace than a source of conflict (Wolf, 1998; Sadoff and Grey, 2002; Yoffe et al., 2003; Wolf et al., 2005; Zawahri, 2008; De Stefano et al., 2010; Carius, 2011). This thesis builds on existing transboundary water cooperation research and considers whether wetlands belong in the transboundary water cooperation discourse, from which they are largely absent at present. Preliminary research was conducted by a simple keyword search. The keyword search used the terms ‘transboundary wetland,’ ‘wetland

cooperation,’ and ‘shared wetland management,’ as well as parallel keywords related to rivers, using Google Scholar. Google Scholar was used for ease in numerical reporting of search results. The search included peer-reviewed articles, policy briefs, and book chapters. The keyword search provides a qualitative analysis of data that exists related to this research topic by generating a clear picture of the concepts that have been studied regarding transboundary wetlands. The results indicate some evidence of cooperation over transboundary wetlands, as well as the need for more research (Table 1). Given the importance of wetland ecosystems and the threats they face, this research aims to identify methods of managing them and explore their potential role in transboundary cooperation. Shared wetlands are one area that can be further explored to better protect biodiversity, preserve ecological functions, and enhance cooperation. Transboundary wetlands, similar to other transboundary waters, present an opportunity for cooperation.

Table 1. Justification of research: results of preliminary research demonstrating research gap. Results retrieved from Google Scholar on 8-October-2020. Keywords Transboundary wetland Wetland cooperation Shared wetland management # Results 161 9 3 Keywords Transboundary river River cooperation Shared river management # Results 11,100 805 43

1.4 Reflexivity

While every effort is made to remain objective, it is important to reveal the following about the author to acknowledge any implicit bias. The author is a white, middle class, straight, cis gender, non-disabled female from the United States of America. She grew up in the Washington, DC area and was privileged to attend a science- and technology-focused high school. She holds a Bachelor’s of Science in Environmental Science and Technology from the University of Maryland, where she conducted field research in tidal and non-tidal saltmarshes on the eastern shore.

Section 2: Literature Review 2.1 Wetlands

Wetlands are areas of land that are saturated with water “all year or for varying periods of time during the year, including during the growing season” (USEPA, 2018), where the inundation strongly influences the biogeochemistry of the land. Wetlands are characterized by the presence of water, especially in regards to three components: hydrologic regime, hydric soil, and hydrophytic vegetation (Environmental Laboratory, 1987). Examples of wetlands include marshes, swamps, fens, bogs, peatlands, and vernal pools, each of which is defined by the quantity of water over time (Finlayson et al., 2018).

The importance of wetlands was not always well-understood but is now widely promoted in scientific research. Keddy identifies wetlands as one of the most biological productive habitats on Earth (2010). In terms of primary productivity, wetlands yield high amounts of organic matter and oxygen, which in turn supports many provisioning services such as wildlife habitat, plant growth, and carbon sequestration. Revenga et al. demonstrate that wetlands play an important role in supporting biodiversity, protecting communities from flooding, improving water quality, and facilitating economic activities such as fisheries (2000). However, despite their importance to many human and ecosystem processes, the importance of wetlands was not always well-understood. A case study from Cameroon found wetland degradation to be a product of insufficient legal means worsened by lack of community awareness of wetland benefits (Tetinwe, 2019). Globally, wetland habitat is lost at an alarming rate.

The percentage of wetland loss was long claimed to be 50% globally, but Davidson’s extensive study found that a more realistic estimate is that 87% of the world’s wetlands have been lost since 1700 (2014: F). Finlayson et al. identify the underlying causes of wetland degradation to be growth of the economy and the human population, with the direct drivers being intensification of agriculture, water abstraction, and coastal development (2005). Conversion of land to agriculture accounts for 60% of Europe’s wetland loss (Mitsch and Gosselink, 2007). Where wetlands remain intact, they often receive tremendous pollution from nearby development.

For the purpose of this thesis, a very broad definition of wetlands is adopted from the Ramsar Convention. Article 1.1 of the Ramsar Convention defines wetlands as, “areas of marsh, fen, peatland or water, whether natural or artificial, permanent or temporary, with water that is static or flowing, fresh, brackish or salt, including areas of marine water the depth of which at low tide does not exceed six metres” (Ramsar Convention, 2013). Furthermore, Article 2.1 of the Ramsar Convention expands this definition to ensure that Ramsar Sites are protected in a way that they are integrated with their

surrounding environment. Article 2.1 states that wetlands to be protected as Ramsar Sites, “may incorporate riparian and coastal zones adjacent to the wetlands, and islands or bodies of marine water deeper than six metres at low tide lying within the wetlands” (Ramsar Convention, 2013). Since this thesis research relies heavily on the transboundary wetlands protected by the Ramsar Convention, this broad definition is used in documenting and analyzing the world’s transboundary wetlands.

2.2 Transboundary Wetlands

The International Union for the Conservation of Nature defines transboundary protected areas as, “an area of land and/or sea that straddles one or more boundaries between states, sub-national units such as provinces and regions, autonomous areas and/or areas beyond the limits of national sovereignty or jurisdiction, whose constituent parts are especially dedicated to the protection and maintenance of biological diversity, and of natural and associated cultural resources, and managed co-operatively through legal or other effective means” (Sandwith et al., 2001). Wetlands, like other ecosystems, do not adhere to political boundaries. Approximately 60% of the world’s freshwaters are transboundary in nature, meaning that they cross country borders (UN Water, 2008). Papayannis argues that the IUCN definition of transboundary protected areas can be adapted to transboundary wetlands by preserving the following aspects, “transcending administrative boundaries, and in particular national borders between sovereign states; dedication to the conservation of the natural and cultural heritage; and cooperative and effective management,” as well as by incorporating the following from the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands: “taking into account equitably the needs and wellbeing of people on both sides of the frontier” (Papayannis, 2014).

While previous research has explored management options for wetlands (Euliss et al., 2008; Janssen et al., 2005; Herath, 2004; Maltby, 1991), little research has been done on managing transboundary wetlands. A significant portion of the existing research on transboundary wetlands explores specific case studies (Mudondo et al., 2018; Gallardo et al., 2013; Ostrovskaya et al., 2012). Moreover, there is limited overlap between researchers studying transboundary wetlands and those studying other transboundary waters. Much work has been done on transboundary water management and cooperation specifically around rivers (Subramanian et al., 2014; Cascao, 2009; Wolf et al., 2003; Sadoff et al., 2002). Furthermore, researchers who focus on wetland management and the Ramsar Convention may offer new perspectives to basin-wide management plans. In addition to better scholarly integration, there is room for improvement in policy integration between wetland law and water law.

2.3 International Law

International Wetland Law

Wetlands are protected under the 1971 Convention on Wetlands of International Importance especially as Waterfowl Habitat (Ramsar Convention). The Ramsar Convention is an international treaty which guides the conservation of wetland resources (UNESCO, 1994) and promotes the “wise use” of wetlands of “international significance” (Ramsar Convention on Wetlands, 2005). Approximately 250 million hectares of wetlands are currently protected under the Ramsar Convention, amounting to about 15% of wetlands globally (Ramsar Convention, 2018). Designation of a wetland as a Ramsar site gives the area recognition nationally and internationally for its significance to humanity. Currently, 171 countries are party to the Ramsar Convention, which is well above that of other international water treaties (Table 2). Signatories to the Ramsar Convention collectively recognize 2,410 wetlands of international importance, amounting to about 2,544,670 km2 (Ramsar Convention, 2020).

Through the Ramsar Convention, wetlands can be protected as individual or transboundary Ramsar Sites. An individual Ramsar Site is designated unilaterally by a country and the recognition applies only to the wetland area occurring within the country’s borders. Although, the Ramsar Convention requires countries that are party to the Ramsar Convention to participate in conserving any Ramsar Site they are riparian to or hydrologically connected to (Ramsar Convention, 2013). The Ramsar Convention defines Transboundary Ramsar Sites as those where, “an ecologically coherent wetland extends across national borders and the Ramsar Site authorities on both or all sides of the border have formally agreed to collaborate in its management, and have notified the Secretariat of this intent" (Ramsar Convention, 2013). Presently, there are 22 Transboundary Ramsar Sites in the world, although there are numerous transboundary wetlands that are designated as individual Ramsar sites (not transboundary). In some cases, this occurs because not all riparian countries are party to the Ramsar Convention. For example, the Okavango Delta, which is shared by Botswana, Namibia and Angola, is one of the largest Ramsar sites in the world. However, it is not considered a Transboundary Ramsar Site because it was unilaterally designated by Botswana, and furthermore, Angola is not party to the Ramsar Convention (OKACOM, 2011). Namibia also recognizes a portion of the Okavango Delta as a Ramsar Site, but the portion within Angola lies outside of Ramsar recognition, and Angola is not required by Ramsar to participate in conservation of the delta because, since Angola is not party to the Ramsar Convention, the associated obligations do not apply.

The significance of the designation as a Transboundary Ramsar Site is the cooperation that such a designation requires. The countries must jointly agree to designate the wetland and instate Ramsar’s “wise use” policies. The Ramsar Convention provides guidance on the “wise use” of wetlands and obligates contracting parties to three “pillars.” The three “pillars” that contracting parties adhere to are: (1) wise use; (2) designating at least one Ramsar Site; and (3) “cooperating across national boundaries on transboundary wetlands, shared wetland systems and shared species” (Ramsar Convention, 2018). “Wise use” is defined as “the maintenance of [a wetland’s] ecological character, achieved through the implementation of ecosystem approaches, within the context of sustainable development” (Ramsar Convention, 2005). Under “wise use,” countries balance ecosystem and human needs. Countries that are party to the Ramsar Convention agree to designate at least one wetland as having international significance, based on certain criteria (see Ramsar Convention, 2013 for more information). Furthermore, the Ramsar Convention mandates the adoption of National Wetland Policies, the development of integrated management plans for wetlands, the monitoring, research and inventorying of wetlands, and the sharing of information about wetland importance to the public. The pillars of the Ramsar Convention provide an international legal framework for transboundary wetland conservation.

A small pool of researchers have directed their attention to the Ramsar Convention, namely Verschuuren, Lee, and Griffin. One researcher, Verschuuren, is a bit skeptical of the practicality of the Ramsar Convention, while Lee and Griffin are more hopeful of the opportunities that international law provides. Through an analysis of two transboundary wetland case studies, Verschuuren concludes that international law is too complicated, and that stakeholders prefer to avoid the legal process rather than navigate the often conflicting national laws and policies of neighboring countries (Verschuuren, 2008). Verschuuren’s research posits that communities prefer informal mechanisms to manage their transboundary wetland resources rather than jointly sign legal agreements. However, even if it is complex, international law provides a framework for working towards cooperative management of shared resources.

Griffin points to the Ramsar Convention as an “underutilized diplomatic opportunity” to build trust and peace between neighboring countries (Griffin, 2012). Her article makes a comparison between the Global Peace Index and transboundary Ramsar sites to point to opportunities where the Ramsar Convention can lead conflicting countries towards peace. Countries at high risk of conflict may find opportunities to collaborate on joint management of shared non-controversial wetlands as a means of

building trust (Griffin, 2012). Lee also finds that transboundary water cooperation is facilitated, in part, by the Ramsar Convention. Lee posits that the Ramsar Convention provides an opportunity for states to apply the principles of international water law to protect transboundary wetlands (2015). The Ramsar Convention is one tool countries can use to bring the issue of transboundary wetland management to the table.

International Water Law

International water law is another important tool to govern the sharing of water resources. There are international water laws that apply directly to surface and ground waters, but many connections can also be made to wetlands. Due to their hydrologic connection to other water resources, wetlands necessitate special considerations for governance. Impacts to, and agreements made over, their source waters directly affect the wetland health. Dettmann and Enemark found “rivers are by far the largest carrier of polluting substances from the land to the Wadden Sea [Transboundary Ramsar Wetland]. The German rivers Elbe, Weser and Ems, together with the Dutch IJsselmeer, discharge each year on average 60 km3 of polluted water into the Wadden Sea” (2004). There are also cases where wetlands play a role upstream of rivers. The Himalayan Wetlands are “located at the headwaters and help regulate the flow of ten major rivers” (Harris et al., 2009).

International water law can help guide neighboring countries towards cooperative relationships. Treaties that govern international waters include the 1997 United Nations Convention on the Law of Non-Navigational Uses of International Watercourses (UNWC) and the 1992 Helsinki Convention on the Protection and Use of Transboundary Watercourses and International Lakes (Water Convention). Each of these laws applies to wetlands in the following ways:

(1) The UNWC defines watercourses as, “… a system of surface waters and groundwaters constituting by virtue of their physical relationship a unitary whole and normally flowing into a common terminus…” (UNWC, 1997). By this definition, the UNWC applies to wetlands that are hydrologically connected to rivers.

(2) The Water Convention defines transboundary waters as, “any surface or ground waters which mark, cross or are located on boundaries between two or more States; wherever transboundary waters flow directly into the sea, these transboundary waters end at a straight line across their respective mouths between points on the low-water line of their banks”

(UNECE, 1992). This definition includes inland wetlands that are considered to be surface or ground waters.

(3) Given the Ramsar definition of wetlands as including riparian lakes and rivers (e.g., Lake Prespa), any country that embraces this broad definition or is party to the Ramsar Convention could argue that both the UNWC and Water Convention apply to their wetlands (as lakes, surface waters and ground waters).

Principles of international water law are integral to the protection of transboundary water resources. The principles of equitable and reasonable use and the obligation not to cause harm guide countries towards cooperation. The UNWC includes a general obligation for riparian states to cooperate over shared watercourses, “…on the basis of sovereign equality, territorial integrity, mutual benefit and good faith in order to attain optimal utilization and adequate protection of an international watercourse” (UNWC, 1997). For transboundary wetlands, the UNWC could give countries equal rights to wetland resources, allowing countries to use the wetland without damaging it. This is in line with the “wise use” principles of the Ramsar Convention.

The three pillars of the Water Convention are: to “prevent, control and reduce transboundary impacts; ensure reasonable and equitable use of transboundary waters; and cooperate through agreements and joint bodies” (UNECE, 2018). The first two pillars are directly related to the principles of international water law: the obligation not to cause harm, and equitable and reasonable use. The third pillar emphasizes the importance of formalizing cooperative agreements on shared water resources. Application of the Water Convention to transboundary wetlands could prevent conflicts, enable countries to share the benefits of their shared wetlands, and foster long-lasting cooperation through formal agreements.

International Water Law and the Ramsar Convention

Boisson de Chazournes posits that transboundary water cooperation relies on appropriate legal support (2009). The Ramsar Convention offers many of the same concepts as the UNWC and Water Convention. Iza describes the principles of sustainable use, ecological value, and basin-wide management as being central to the Ramsar Convention (2004). The Ramsar Convention recognizes that wetland conservation, “…can be ensured by combining far-sighted national policies with co-ordinated international action” (UNESCO, 1994). Here, the Ramsar Convention acknowledges the importance of states writing and implementing wetland management policies in conjunction with international support. The Ramsar

Convention also fosters cooperation by calling for states to promote data exchange, training, and consultation of co-riparian states in relation to transboundary wetlands.

There are many other principles of international water law that help foster cooperation. Rahaman identifies that the effective management of transboundary water resources relies on specific principles of international water law, including limited territorial sovereignty, equitable use, no harm, prior notification, exchange of information, and the peaceful settlement of disputes (2009). Limited territorial sovereignty basically combines the principles of equitable and reasonable use and the obligation not to cause harm by granting each riparian country a share of the water resource. These principles, as well as prior notification and information exchange, relate to transboundary wetlands as already discussed. One principle that is not covered by the Ramsar Convention is dispute settlement. Application of the UNWC and Water Convention to wetlands could help to fill this gap.

Table 2. Number of contracting parties to the Ramsar Convention, the 1997 United Nations Convention on the Law of Non-Navigational Uses of International Watercourses (UNWC), and the 1992 Helsinki Convention on the Protection and Use of Transboundary Watercourses and International Lakes (Water Convention). Data was sourced from the United Nations Treaty Collection (https://treaties.un.org/).

Treaty # Contracting Parties Principles Ramsar Convention 171  Wise use  Wetland protection  Transboundary cooperation UNWC 37 (+16 signatories)  Obligation not to cause harm  Equitable & reasonable use  Transboundary cooperation Water Convention 44 (+26 signatories)  Obligation not to cause harm  Equitable & reasonable use  Transboundary cooperation

2.4 Transboundary wetland management

Transboundary wetlands are managed under a variety of arrangements. Papayannis posits that transboundary wetlands, like other international waters, “require joint efforts of equitable and wise use,” to manage the problems they face (2004). Transboundary water management is a useful tool for preventing conflict and promoting cooperation. Through jointly managing water resources, countries discover opportunities to share not only responsibility, but also benefits (UN Water, 2008). While most research has focused on governance of transboundary rivers, wetlands may also be a viable resource for fostering transboundary cooperation. Indeed, Milanes-Murcia et al. posit that “integration and cooperation are fundamental in proper management of transboundary wetlands” (2013). Transboundary wetlands are managed at the international, regional, national, and local levels.

International

Internationally, transboundary wetlands can be managed as Transboundary Ramsar Sites under the Ramsar Convention. Following the principles of “wise use,” signatories agree to manage their designated wetlands with an eye to ecological integrity while still making use of resources sustainably. While the individual Ramsar Site designation provides legal status for a wetland, the Transboundary Ramsar Site designation is an arrangement for cooperative management. For example, the North-Livonian Transboundary Wetland Complex Ramsar Site encompasses the Nigula and Sookuninga Nature Reserve Ramsar Sites in Estonia and the Northern Bogs Ramsar Site in Latvia. Designation as a Transboundary Ramsar Site reflects the commitment of Estonia and Latvia to cooperate over the wetlands, which furthermore enables them to share both benefits and burdens of management.

However, transboundary wetland management at the international scale is not always successful. The Niger Basin Authority promotes collaborative development of many sectors, including water resources (Lautze and Giordano, 2005). Although the members (Benin, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Chad, Cote D’Ivoire, Guinea, Mali, Niger, and Nigeria) signed the Ramsar Convention in 2002 to promote sustainable wetland development, the Niger Delta is shrinking due to upstream water consumption (Wetlands International, 2017). In this region, the Sahel, deterioration of livelihoods is directly linked to the degradation of wetlands (Wetlands International, 2017). While the Ramsar Convention offers tools for the “wise use” of wetlands, more effective methods of transboundary wetland management may be needed in order to sustain human wellbeing.

Regional

There are also a number of regional efforts to manage wetlands through transboundary legal instruments, many of which are recognized as Ramsar Regional Initiatives. The first regional initiative was created in 1993 to facilitate collaboration to conserve wetlands in the Mediterranean region. It was formally approved by the Ramsar Committee in 1999 and spurred the Committee to encourage other regions to collaborate in similar ways. Eventually, in 2002, the Ramsar Committee released, ‘Guidance for the development of Regional Initiatives in the framework of the Convention on Wetlands,’ to suggest the development of regional initiatives for wetland conservation. This Guidance includes information on identifying the aim, governance, financial support, organizational relations, implementation of the Ramsar Strategic Plan, and required annual reporting (Ramsar Convention, 2016). Currently, there are 19 Ramsar Regional Initiatives.

One such effort is the Mediterranean Wetlands Initiative (MedWet), which was the first Regional Initiative to be established. MedWet promotes the conservation and sustainable use of wetlands in 27 countries in the Mediterranean region (MedWet, 2016). Transboundary wetland management provides opportunities to cooperate and share the benefits of sustainable wetland development; therefore, sustainable development is central to wetland management. Wetland management plans are developed with the objective of using wetland resources to their upmost capacity while benefiting current and future communities (Wetlands International, 2019).

Similarly, although not officially recognized as a Ramsar Regional Initiative, the Himalayan Wetlands Initiative brings the management of wetlands spread across eight countries under one structure (Harris et al., 2009). The Himalayan Wetlands Initiative prioritizes stakeholder involvement in wetland management to promote mutual benefit (Lei, 2005). The former Senior Regional Advisor for Asia- Oceania at the Ramsar Convention Secretariat, Guangchun Lei, identified “innovative partnership and networking which mobilizes political wills, stakeholder involvement, [and] financial resources, is the pre- requisites condition to achieve the goal of the [Himalayan Wetlands] initiative” (Ramsar Convention, 2015a). While not legally-binding, the Himalayan Wetlands Initiative recognizes that the countries (Bhutan, China, India, Kyrgyztan, Nepal, and Pakistan) share a common goal of conserving their high altitude wetlands, some of which are transboundary and most of which are part of international drainage basins. The Himalayas host 28 Ramsar Sites (Harris et al., 2009). Although the Himalayan Wetlands Initiative was first proposed to be a Ramsar Regional Initiative in 2008, it is not recognized in this way. Currently, it is a Regional Initiative of the World Wide Fund for Nature in India (WWF-India), and coordinates through WWF offices in Pakistan, India, Nepal, Bhutan and China.

Basin-Specific

Wetland management also occurs at the basin level, often through river basin organizations (RBOs). For example, in the Amur Basin, the 1996 Agreement on the Natural Reserve Lake Khanka/Xingkai governs nature reserves (that are designated as individual Ramsar Sites) on either side of the Russia-China border (Vinogradov and Wouters, 2013). This also reveals an interesting example of legal transboundary cooperation over the wetland area without designation as a Transboundary Ramsar Site.

Although one might assume that RBOs manage wetlands as per principles of integrated water resources management, improvements may need to be made. An analysis for the River Basin Initiative, a collaboration between the Ramsar Convention and the Convention of Biological Diversity, found that “97% of respondents agreed that there was a need for better integration of management of wetlands, biodiversity and river basins” (Convention on Biological Diversity, 2002).

National

Wetland management also occurs at the national level. Due to the strong tie between wetlands and livelihoods, this often includes considerations for development. The Ghar El Melh Coastal Development Programme in Tunis promotes sustainable tourism as one of its many joint management goals (MedWet, 2019). Linking the management of wetlands to other sectors may strengthen wetland conservation through collaborative projects. In this way, development sectors may better understand the benefits of wetland resources and thus value their conservation and wise use. It is also important to consider national wetlands and their associated policies or management schemes in order to better understand how they fit in with, or possibly contradict, governance at local and transboundary levels.

Local

Transboundary cooperation can be strengthened by including a variety of actors and stakeholders. Community-based management and local stakeholder involvement are often seen as essential components of successful wetland management. In the case of the Ecuadorian Andes, community members said, “…the community should be the primary management institution of water, forests, plants, and animals under the guidance of and with financial support from government organizations…” (Gallardo et al., 2013). Government organizations also play a role in facilitating transboundary cooperation.

Other Considerations

Like other water resources, mismanaged wetlands can become a source of conflict. Najafi and Vatanfada identify the absence of a transboundary agreement as one reason the Hamoun Wetlands experienced major degradation, due in part to the overexploitation of natural resources (2011). Wetland conflict is often discussed as a conflict of uses. Villanueva et al. demonstrate that conflict in the Taim wetland area exists between conservation and irrigation (2009). In this example, the source of the Taim, Lake Mangueira, was not included in the protections for the wetland itself. This exclusion of nearby waterbodies highlights the need for wetland management to be transboundary in sociopolitical, geographic and ecological scales. Yet another example of wetland conflict is occurring in the Inner Niger Delta, where competition for use of the wetlands results in violence. Since 2012, violent conflict has occurred as a result of competing interests of farmers, herders, fishers, “fuelled by a lack of strong governance, a weak judicial system, confusing land rights and ethnic tensions” (Wetlands International, 2019). These examples of conflict highlight the need for improvement in wetland management and governance.

Successful management of transboundary wetlands is the product of cooperation on many scales. Long- term collaboration between international, national, local, academic and non-governmental entities is necessary for the establishment of transboundary wetland initiatives (Papayannis, 2004). The Mediterranean Wetlands Initiative (MedWet) provides an example of this in action. MedWet is an international collaboration between Ramsar, non-governmental organizations, and the governments of France, Greece, Italy, Portugal and Spain. These entities work together to prevent the loss of wetlands in the region while promoting conservation and sustainable development (MedWet, 2016). In addition to conserving wetlands, the MedWet Initiative provides additional opportunities to cooperate through the sharing of economic benefits.

Collaboration across multiple scales, with legal power, enables cooperative management of transboundary wetland resources. McIntyre notes, “it has long been understood among international environmental lawyers that… institutional arrangements are essential for effective environmental protection” (McIntyre, 2016b). Odom and Wolfe similarly find that transboundary wetland management is facilitated by international environmental treaties (2011).

2.4.1 Institutions

Transboundary wetlands transcend political boundaries and require joint management by riparian countries. One option may be to call upon existing management bodies. Given the connectivity of

wetlands to rivers (Leibowitz et al., 2018; Schneider et al., 2017), river basin organizations (RBOs) may be well-suited to manage transboundary wetlands. RBOs are defined as, “Institutions that have been set up by riparian states to internationally govern shared water resources” (Schmeier et al., 2015). McIntyre notes that a recommendation adopted at the 1972 Stockholm Conference called for the formation of “river basin commissions or other appropriate machinery for co-operation between interested States for water resources common to more than one jurisdiction” (Recommendation 51 of the Action Plan for the Human Environment, 1972 Stockholm Conference, as cited by McIntyre, 2016b).

RBOs are an example of an entity that sometimes manages transboundary wetlands. For example, the Nile Basin Initiative writes guidance for the joint management of shared wetland resources (Nile Basin Initiative, 2013). Moreover, Off Your Map, an organization that partners with the Mediterranean Wetlands Initiative, identifies “river basin management bodies” as a key party in wetland management (2018). The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment identifies RBOs as responsible for managing wetlands because, “…they align with hydrologically defined geographical units” (2005).

2.5 Transboundary Water Interactions

Action over shared water resources is driven by an array of interactions between riparian countries. Media portrays water resources as a leading source of conflict, with headlines that speak of “water wars” and “environmental refugees.” Indeed, Mudondo et al. posit that environmental conflicts are more likely to occur in transboundary protected areas (2018). In contrast, Wolf et al. demonstrate that shared water resources provide an opportunity for, “…building confidence, developing cooperation, and preventing conflict…” (2005). Zawahri similarly posits that states have a tendency to cooperate over shared waterbodies (2008). However, while it is tempting to think that joint management of water resources in and of itself is evidence of cooperation, other research suggests that it may be more complicated.

Country relations are not always either cooperative or conflictive. Mirumachi and Allan’s analysis of transboundary water relations demonstrates that cooperation and conflict can coexist (2007). For example, two countries may cooperate to develop a wetland for tourism, from which there is mutual benefit, while they simultaneously conflict over how to proceed with such development. De Stefano et al. observe, “the two most controversial issues in transboundary relations continue to be infrastructure and water quantity… Positive interactions continue to be associated with joint management, flood

control and technical cooperation” (De Stefano et al., 2010). Controversy over infrastructure can co-exist with cooperative flood management.

As identified by the transboundary water cooperation discourse, shared water resources present an opportunity for collaboration (Wolf et al., 2005; Zawahri, 2008). There is a clear gap in knowledge on the link between transboundary wetlands and cooperation (see Section 1.3 Justification of Research), but there is also a dearth of information about transboundary wetlands in general. Building on the transboundary water cooperation discourse, I posit that shared wetlands are one area that can be further explored to enhance cooperation. Transboundary wetlands, similar to other transboundary waters, present an opportunity for cooperation.

2.6 Measuring Cooperation

There are a number of attempts to measure the extent to which riparian countries cooperate over shared resources. The United Nations Sustainable Development Goal 6.5 calls for countries to, “…implement integrated water resources management at all levels, including through transboundary cooperation as appropriate”(United Nations, 2015). As such, the methodology for measuring indicator 6.5.2, which focuses on, “Proportion of transboundary basin area with an operational arrangement for water cooperation” (United Nations, 2015), may be useful. The SDG Indicator 6.5.2 methodology assumes that cooperation increases with the number of operational indicators that are observed. These measurable indicators are identified as, “existence of a joint body, regular communication, a joint management plan, and regular data and information exchange” (McCracken, 2017). This is one method for quantifying the extent of transboundary cooperation.

Another technique for measuring transboundary cooperation is the Blue Peace Index, which explores whether countries share water resources “in a sustainable, equitable and collaborative manner” (Economist Intelligence Unit, 2019a).The Blue Peace Index identifies collaboration as “the need to involve users, planners and policymakers at all levels in the management and development of the shared water resources through transparent and deliberative decision-making processes” (Economist Intelligence Unit, 2019b). This tool identifies five areas for measuring water collaboration: law and policy; institutions and participants; water management mechanisms; finance; and contextual factors. While this is a robust list of parameters, the Blue Peace Index emphasizes the importance of the state and does not recognize non-state actors.

An additional consideration is to distinguish between management and development as they relate to cooperation. Transboundary water cooperation often enables joint development projects and can contribute to environmental degradation due to intensification of said projects (Sneddon and Fox, 2006). On the other hand, shared management of resources contributes to environmental protection (Carius, 2011). This differentiation is critical to maintaining a fuller definition of management and protection, due to the detrimental impacts development can have on the environment. Ide notes that the environmental management discourse has a tendency to overlook unintended consequences such as eviction of indigenous peoples, undermining the role of the state, and environmental degradation (2020).

Section 3: Theoretical Considerations

Transboundary Wetland Cooperation

This research builds on a number of the issues discussed in the literature review and contributes to the broad field of transboundary water management with a specific focus on wetlands. This research conducts an analysis of the organizations involved in managing transboundary wetlands to lead to a broader understanding of how riparian countries interact over their shared wetland resources.

Neoliberal Institutionalist Theory

This research draws on neoliberal institutionalist theory to investigate the role of organizations in transboundary wetland management. In neoliberal institutionalism, the nation-state provides services, decisions are driven by human reasoning, and thus, international cooperation is seen as mutually beneficial (Julien, 2012). The argument follows, then, that formal organizations are institutions that provide the service of transboundary wetland management. In doing so, these institutions manage future forecasts of resource scarcity by creating a platform for various resource users to agree on how the resource will be used. Following the terminology of Ostrom, the “action arena” is influenced by the “rules” for wetland management, the wetland resources themselves, and the community involved (2007). Building on this theory, I assume that law plays a role in the way that transboundary wetlands are managed. This framework helps to demonstrate to what extent legal and formal mechanisms play a role in transboundary wetland management. Furthermore, this research explores institutions that manage transboundary wetlands to understand what “rules” they follow and to what extent these fall within the “rules” or “norms” of transboundary water cooperation.

Cooperation over shared wetland resources is enabled by international water law. The principles of equitable and reasonable use and no harm, as well as the duty to cooperate, guide riparian states to work together to manage transboundary resources (Figure 1). These principles of international water law, from the UNWC, the Water Convention, and the Ramsar Convention, promote joint protection of water resources. As highlighted in the Literature Review, while the UNWC and Water Convention do not specifically apply to wetlands, they are relevant for the following reasons:

(1) the UNWC and Water Convention govern waters that may be hydrologically connected to wetlands;

(2) the principles of international water law are ecologically pertinent to wetlands; and

(3) the basins that are governed by international water law often contain wetlands.

International water conventions serve as a mechanism through which wetlands can be added to basin agreements. Furthermore, principles of international water law can provide a legal framework to promote sustainable cooperative management of shared wetland resources. Many national and transboundary wetland policies incorporate the principles of equitable and reasonable use and the obligation to do no harm. Conflict is present in some transboundary wetlands that do not adhere to these principles. Transboundary wetlands may serve as a source of cooperation for riparian countries, especially if principles of international water law are embraced to guide states in cooperating over their shared wetland resources.

This research is also influenced by the wise use framework developed by the Ramsar Convention. Wise use is defined as, “…the maintenance of [a wetland’s] ecological character, achieved through the implementation of ecosystem approaches, within the context of sustainable development” (Ramsar Convention, 2005). Since wetlands do provide many economic opportunities, they are often seen as an opportunity for development. The Ramsar Convention calls for a balance between development and conservation in order to maximize benefits for the animals, including humans, which rely on wetlands, while still enabling continued use of the resources. This research will analyze to what extent the interaction of organizations with transboundary wetlands aligns with the “wise use” of wetlands.

There are many factors that contribute to wise use. The wise use of wetlands requires landscape-scale management, community involvement, and effective governance (Ramsar Convention, 2018). Landscape-scale management can be equated to basin-wide management promoted by transboundary water governance. For this reason, international water treaties, river basin agreements, and other transboundary water governance mechanisms are considered in this research, in addition to wetlands- specific agreements. This research explores these components in three case studies in an effort to better understand what contributes to wise use.

Conceptual Framework

The conceptual framework connects an analysis of the interactions in transboundary wetlands to measures of transboundary cooperation over rivers and lakes. This framework brings wetlands into the transboundary water cooperation discourse and demonstrates how to incorporate wetlands into current transboundary water cooperation analyses. Each of the three selected case studies considers the unilateral and joint actions of riparian countries on the wetland, their motivation for action, and

their involvement in formal and informal organizations. The analysis is based on measures of transboundary water cooperation.

The analysis explores the extent to which transboundary wetlands influence cooperative relations between riparian countries. To do so, indicators of cooperation were developed based on “Measuring transboundary water cooperation: options for Sustainable Development Goal Target 6.5” (McCracken, 2017), which describes three methods for measuring transboundary water cooperation. The second method assumes that cooperation increases with the number of operational indicators that are observed: “existence of a joint body, regular communication, a joint management plan, and regular data and information exchange” (UNECE, 2019).

Drawing on neoliberal institutionalism and using Ramsar’s “wise use” framework as a guide, this research explores how countries interact in the “wise” management of their shared wetlands. This research assumes that wetlands are protected in different ways, that the different methods of wetland management result in different outcomes, and that there are benefits to protecting wetlands. More specifically, the framework asserts that formal mechanisms of managing transboundary wetlands will have different outcomes than informal mechanisms, each of which (legal or informal) will have further varying outcomes based on whether the management is conducted unilaterally or jointly by the countries riparian to the wetland (Figure 1). This research hypothesizes that formal, joint management of transboundary wetlands are most effective at wetland conservation. The analysis of informal mechanisms of transboundary wetland management is beyond the scope of this thesis. Thus, this research will focus on the formal mechanisms through which countries engage in transboundary wetland management.

Figure 1. Conceptual framework: this research presumes that differences in wetland protection arise based on the institutional mechanism of wetland management (formal or informal) as well as the participation of riparian countries (joint or unilateral management). This research focuses on formal mechanisms of wetland management.

Section 4: Methods

For this research, a number of terms will be used according to the following definitions: • Wetland: area of land saturated with water, where water influences biogeochemistry of the land; includes both marine and inland wetlands. • Transboundary wetland: a continuous wetland that transcends geopolitical borders. This research explores the connection between transboundary wetlands and cooperative relations between the countries that share them. The research is driven by the question, “To what extent do transboundary wetlands influence the tendency of countries towards cooperative relationships?,” which is further informed by the following two sub-questions:

1. What are options to manage transboundary wetlands?

2. How do countries interact over transboundary wetlands?

4.1 Research Design

This research uses a mixed methods approach to explore institutional options for managing transboundary wetlands. The starting point was the development of a database of transboundary wetlands. The Transboundary Wetlands Database was populated by a desk study of literature on transboundary wetlands complemented by spatial analysis. From this list, three wetlands were selected for further analysis of their relationship to transboundary cooperation.

The three case studies for this study are transboundary wetlands, meaning they are shared by more than one country. Three cases were selected to allow for more comparison between cases to substantiate the evidence (Bryman, 2004). The riparian countries are included in the analysis to determine the level of interaction between the different parties. The case studies were selected based on the availability of information and the most different case design to represent different geographic locations, different sociopolitical and economic situations, and different levels of recognition of the wetland by the Ramsar Convention. The transboundary wetlands explored in this research are the Wadden Sea, the Okavango Delta, and the Hamoun Wetlands. This research explores only three case studies out of 300 transboundary wetlands that could be considered.

4.2 Data Collection

4.2.1 Global Analysis

The first step of this research was a global analysis to document transboundary wetlands. Many sources were used to develop a database of transboundary wetlands, which was created in an effort to understand the scope of the topic. Data was sourced from wetland databases from the Ramsar Secretariat, scientific articles, and organizations that focus on wetland protection. The starting point was the Ramsar List of Transboundary Wetlands. Then, from the Ramsar Sites Information Service, a spreadsheet of global Ramsar sites was downloaded and then narrowed down to only those sites that had an answer of “yes” to their criteria, “Does the wetland extend onto the territory of one or more other countries?” (RSIS, 2020). Next, the identified transboundary wetlands were cross-referenced with the list of 234 transboundary wetlands developed by Griffin and Ali (2012) to add sites that were missing. Finally, the search for transboundary wetlands culminated online through the Google search engine to identify other transboundary wetlands that were missing from the list. From these sources I obtained the name of the transboundary wetland, the riparian countries, other site designations (i.e.; Ramsar, Biosphere Reserve, UNESCO World Heritage Site), listing on the Montreux Record, and whether the wetland has a management plan available and/or implemented.

The spatial analysis of transboundary wetlands was then expanded to include additional metrics (i.e., river basin and river basin organizations). In an effort to better understand the institutional capacity of each transboundary wetland’s riparian countries, I determined whether each transboundary wetland falls within a river basin overseen by a river basin organization. To do this, I used QGIS to create a global map of transboundary wetlands overlaid by transboundary river basins. I used the Ramsar Sites Information Service shapefile of Ramsar Sites, the ESRI shapefile "UIA World Countries Boundaries,” and the Transboundary Waters Assessment Programme shapefile of 286 transboundary river basins (Table 3). I then identified on the map the river basin in which each transboundary wetland was located. I transcribed the river basins into the Transboundary Wetlands Database. Finally, I searched for the river basins in the International River Basin Organization Database, housed by Oregon State University, and cataloged the corresponding river basin organizations into the Transboundary Wetland Database. This analysis is built upon the theory that institutions enable management of transboundary water resources.

A map layer of Transboundary Ramsar Sites identified and created by Griffin (2012) was also used for maps included in this thesis.

Table 3. Map layers included in the spatial analysis.

File Topic Source RSIS Ramsar Sites Ramsar Sites https://rsis.ramsar.org/ UIA World Countries Geopolitical boundaries https://hub.arcgis.com/ Boundaries River Basins Transboundary river basins http://twap-rivers.org/indicators/ Points Transboundary wetlands http://www.uvm.edu/ieds/node/798 defined by Griffin

4.2.2 Case Studies

To get a better understanding of how transboundary wetlands are managed, I selected three case studies to analyze. For each case study, I collected data to better understand the factors that contribute to cooperation over transboundary wetlands. The data was collected based on a number of metrics that are described in the Data Analysis. Qualitative data was collected from management plans, academic papers, analyses and reports. All of the data was collected from publicly-available materials obtained through the library databases of Oregon State University, IHE-Delft Institute for Water Education, and the University for Peace, as well as through the Google search engine. Searches for literature used keywords related to the metrics identified in the Conceptual Framework. Only materials available in the English language were considered.

Three transboundary wetlands were selected to serve as case studies for this research. The selected transboundary wetlands are Wadden Sea, Okavango Delta, and Hamoun Wetlands. The case studies were developed by compiling existing information for each region from documents related to the Ramsar Convention, mandates and strategic plans of organizations that work on the selected transboundary wetlands, and research papers (see Appendix for full list of documents). To supplement the document analysis of the Hamoun Wetlands, an interview was conducted. The interviewee was selected based on the purposeful sampling strategy (Creswell and Poth, 2018). A Zoom meeting was held with an individual who is familiar with the Hamoun Wetlands in order to supplement the case study given the low availability of policy documents in the English language. The interview was semi- structured in nature, based on a set of survey questions (see Appendix) with flexibility to deviate from the list of questions based on the information offered by the interviewee.

4.3 Data Analysis

The data analysis was conducted using a mixed methods approach including document analysis (Bowen, 2009) and an interview. Document analysis was used to better understand wetland management in the three transboundary wetlands. Metrics of particular interest are protections for the wetland, management plans, mechanisms of management and cooperation, participation of countries in management/planning/institutions, and reasons for managing wetlands. The information captured through document analysis was categorized and further analyzed using content analysis (Labuschagne, 2003) and coding. A system of coding (see Appendix for codebook) was developed to identify the following parameters: (a) management mechanism; (b) type of wetland action; and (c) participation of co-riparians in wetland action. In order to assess the relevance of each document, a code was also developed to determine whether there was a focus on wetlands.

Due to my focus on exploring how transboundary wetlands are managed (e.g., formal vs. informal, tourism vs. wildlife habitat, and unilateral vs. joint), these codes were selected a priori (Ryan and Bernard, 2003) to aid in narrowing the focus of the analysis. This research focus aims to fill the gap in research around transboundary wetland management. Furthermore, the analysis serves to demonstrate the extent to which transboundary wetlands are linked to cooperative relations between the countries that share them. In the absence of information about the link between transboundary wetlands and cooperation, this analysis was designed to better understand how transboundary wetland management is discussed in regard to country relations.

4.3.1 Mechanism for wetland management

Mechanism for wetland management refers to the legal and organizational structures through which riparian countries manage transboundary wetlands. These mechanisms can be formal or informal, legal or voluntary. This code addresses the research sub-question 1 – What are options to manage transboundary wetlands. This category was populated by the document analysis using the following codes: “law,” “treaty,” “agreement,” and “voluntary.”

Distinguishing between formal and informal management allows for an indication of the impact of the level of institutional capacity on cooperation. Formal organizations are defined as having government involvement, whereas this is not necessary for informal organizations. Examples of formal organizations include River Basin Organizations and international governmental organizations. Analysis of the case studies also brings in perspectives from national laws and policies when needed to help understand the

management schemes of each transboundary wetland. Examples of informal organizations include nonprofit organizations and community-based management groups.

This code aims to understand which mechanisms for transboundary wetland management exist and are linked to cooperative relations. While it is already known to what extent each of the three selected wetlands is designated by the Ramsar Convention, it is not known how the management of the transboundary wetland is coordinated or formalized. Better understanding how transboundary wetlands are managed provides useful insights for future recommendations on transboundary wetland governance.

4.3.2 Focus of wetland management

Focus of wetland management refers to the management goal (protection, economic development, etc.). Identifying sectors or targets of wetland management addresses the research sub-question 2 – How do countries interact over transboundary wetlands – by identifying reasons for which organizations engage with wetlands. The “focus of wetland management” code serves to catalog why organizations and countries manage, talk about, and/or formalize agreements over transboundary wetlands. The focus of wetland management was analyzed through document analysis and coding. Codes for this category were selected based on common topics in wetland management. The codes include, “nature,” “biodiversity,” “ecosystem,” “wildlife,” “species,” “tourism,” “recreation,” “agriculture,” “conservation,” “protection,” “culture,” and “climate change,” as well as variants of each word (see Appendix for full Codebook).

This code provides context around the motives for joint action on wetlands. The results of this analysis could provide insights as to why countries choose (or not) to jointly manage wetlands. While the existence of the Ramsar Convention implies that countries conserve wetlands for bird habitat, there are other reasons for managing wetlands. This code seeks to explore those reasons.

4.3.3 Participation of co-riparians in wetland action

Participation of co-riparians reveals whether the wetland action is unilateral or joint. The component of participation addresses the overarching research question – To what extent do transboundary wetlands influence the tendency of countries towards cooperative relationships? This question considers the extent to which transboundary wetlands are relevant to the transboundary water cooperation discourse.

The participation of co-riparians in wetland action was analyzed through document analysis and coding. Codes for this category were selected based on how involvement is described in the documents. The codes include, “unilateral,” “individual,” “conflict,” “joint,” “cooperation,” “collaboration,” “shared,” as well as variants of each word (see Appendix for full Codebook).

While the extent to which each of the three selected wetlands is governed by the Ramsar Convention, this analysis provides more information. Since there are only 22 Transboundary Ramsar Sites in the world, the breadth of this analysis enables the exploration of other mechanisms of joint transboundary wetland management. For example, this code demonstrates whether there is evidence of cooperative relations between the countries that share wetlands that are not designated as Transboundary Ramsar Sites. In this way, the Wadden Sea serves as a baseline to see the extent to which cooperation is evident in the documents from a Transboundary Ramsar Site, which is assumed to have cooperation as per the Ramsar Convention.

4.3.4 Final Analysis

An additional product of my research is a discussion on the role of transboundary wetlands in building peaceful relations. There is extensive research that demonstrates that shared waters are more often a driver of peace than a source of conflict (Wolf et al., 1998; Sadoff and Grey, 2002; Yoffe et al., 2003; Wolf et al., 2005; Zawahri, 2008; De Stefano et al., 2010; Carius, 2011). This research builds on existing transboundary water cooperation research and considers whether wetlands belong in the transboundary water cooperation discourse, from which they are largely absent at present. This discussion was informed by my research results and explores which attributes of organizations and interactions with transboundary wetlands promote the cooperative management and “wise use” of transboundary wetlands. This discussion compares the results of my research to the SDG Indicator 6.5.2 methodology (McCracken, 2018).

Section 5: Results

5.1 Global Analysis

5.1.1 Identifying transboundary wetlands

The first goal of this thesis is to understand the extent of transboundary wetlands globally. Following the definition set forth by the Ramsar Convention, this thesis considers a broad definition of wetlands to include both coastal and inland wetlands. Indeed, many Ramsar Sites are also considered to be river mouths and lakes. With this definition in mind, the starting point for the global analysis was the Ramsar List of Transboundary Wetlands, a list of the 22 wetland complexes that are recognized by all riparian parties as having international significance. In total, these 22 Transboundary Ramsar Sites encompass 65 individual Ramsar sites that are designated by 26 countries (Table 4).

Table 4. Ramsar Transboundary Wetlands. Ramsar Sites in bold are transboundary; the Ramsar Sites below each bolded Transboundary Wetland are the individual Ramsar sites that it encompasses. (Source: Ramsar Website)

Ramsar Site Countries Adutiskis-Vileity Belarus, Lithuania Adutiskis-Svyla-Birveta wetland complex Lithuania Vileity Belarus Austrian-Bavarian Wildalm Austria, Germany Bayerische Wildalm Germany Bayerische Wildalm and Wildalmfilz Austria Bistret - Ibisha Island Bulgaria, Romania Bistret Romania Ibisha Island Bulgaria Complexe Transfrontalier Lac Tele - Grands Affluents - Congo, Democratic Republic of the Lac Tumba Congo Grands affluents Congo Lac Tele/Likouala-aux-herbes Congo Ngiri-Tumba-Maindombe Democratic Republic of the Congo Complexe transfrontalier W-Arly-Pendjari Benin, Burkina Faso, Niger Parc National d'Arly Burkina Faso Parc National du W Burkina Faso Parc National du W Niger Site Ramsar du Complexe W Benin Zone Humide de la Riviere Pendjari Benin Zone Humide du Moyen Niger Domica-Baradla Cave System Hungary, Slovakia

Baradla Cave System and related wetlands Hungary Domica Slovakia Ipoly Valley - Poiplie Hungary, Slovakia Ipoly Valley Hungary Poiplie Slovakia Kotra-Cepkeliai Belarus, Lithuania Cepkeliai mire Lithuania Kotra Belarus Krkonose/Karkonosze subalpine peatbogs Czech Republic, Poland Krkonoše/Karkonosze Subalpine peatbogs Poland Krkonošská rašeliniště (Krkonose mountains mires) Czech Republic Lake Calarasi - Srebarna Bulgaria, Romania Lake Calarasi (Iezerul Calarasi) Romania Srébarna Bulgaria Niumi-Saloum Gambia, Senegal Niumi National Park Gambia Parc national du Delta du Saloum Senegal North Livonian Transboundary Ramsar Site Estonia, Latvia Nigula Nature Reserve Estonia Northern Bogs (Ziemelu Purvi) Latvia Sookuninga Nature Reserve Estonia Olmany - Perebrody mires Belarus, Ukraine Olmany Mires Zakaznik Belarus Perebrody Peatlands Ukraine Rhin superieur / Oberrhein -- Oberrnein / Rhin superieur France, Germany Oberrhein / Rhin Supérieur Germany Rhin Supérieur / Oberrhein France Stokhid-Prypiat-Prostyr Belarus, Ukraine Prostyr Belarus Prypiat River Floodplains Ukraine Stokhid River Floodplains Ukraine Suhaia - Belene Islands Complex Bulgaria, Romania Belene Islands Complex Bulgaria Suhaia Romania Transboundary Ramsar Site Neusiedler See-Seewinkel - Ferto-Hansag Austria, Hungary Lake Fertö Hungary Neusiedlersee, Seewinkel & Hanság Austria Nyirkai-Hany Hungary Trilateral Ramsar Site Floodplains of the Morava-Dyje- Danube Confluence Austria, Czech Republic, Slovakia Donau-March-Thaya-Auen Austria

Mokřady dolního Podyjí Czech Republic Moravské luhy Slovakia Untere Lobau Austria Upper Tisza Valley Hungary, Slovakia Tisa River Slovakia Upper Tisza (Felsö-Tisza) Hungary Vallee de la Haute-Sure Belgium, Luxembourg Vallée de la Haute-Sûre Luxembourg Vallée de la Haute-Sûre Belgium Vallee du Sourou Burkina Faso, Mali La Vallee du Sourou Burkina Faso Plaine Inondable du Sourou Mali Wadden Sea Denmark, Germany, The Netherlands Duinen Ameland The Netherlands Duinen en Lade land Texel The Netherlands Duinen Schiermonnikoog The Netherlands Duinen Terschelling The Netherlands Duinen Vlieland The Netherlands Hamburgisches Wattenmeer Germany North Sea Coastal Area The Netherlands Schleswig-Holstein Wadden Sea and adjacent areas Germany Vadehavet Denmark Waddenzee The Netherlands Wattenmeer, Elbe-Weser-Dreieck Germany Wattenmeer, Jadebusen & westliche Wesermundung Germany Wattenmeer, Ostfriesisches Wattenmeer & Dollart Germany

Then, the list of Ramsar Sites that “extend onto the territory of one or more other countries” was accessed and added an additional 210 wetlands that are designated by 84 different countries (Table 5).

Table 5. Individual Ramsar Sites that are listed as extending onto the territory of one or more other countries. Transboundary Ramsar Sites were removed from this list since they are reflected separately in Table 4. (Data source: RSIS, 2020; Border Countries determined by spatial analysis using QGIS.)

Ramsar Site Countries Borders Alagol, Ulmagol and Ajigol Lakes Islamic Republic of Iran Turkmenistan Albanian Prespa Lakes Albania Greece, Macedonia Artificial Lake Kerkini Greece Bulgaria, Macedonia Baie de l'Isle-Verte Canada United States

Bañados del Este y Franja Costera Uruguay Brazil Baobolon Wetland Reserve Gambia Senegal Bargerveen Netherlands Germany Béda-Karapancsa Hungary Croatia, Serbia Biharugra Fishponds Hungary Romania Bodensee: Wollmatinger Ried - Giehrenmoos & Mindelsee Germany Austria, Switzerland Bolle di Magadino Switzerland Italy Bung Khong Long Non-Hunting Area Thailand Laos Butrint Albania Greece Cabo Orange National Park Brazil French Guiana Caño Negro Costa Rica Nicaragua Cap Tourmente Canada United States United Kingdom of Great Carlingford Lough Britain and Northern Ireland Ireland Chatyr Kul Kyrgyzstan China Complejo Güija El Salvador Guatemala Conkouati-Douli Congo Gabon Creston Valley Canada United States Cuenca de Tajzara Plurinational State of Bolivia Argentina United Kingdom of Great Cuilcagh Mountain Britain and Northern Ireland Ireland Dalai Lake National Nature Reserve, Inner Mongolia China Mongolia, Russian Federation Danube Delta Romania Moldova, Ukraine Deltas del Estero Real y Llanos de Apacunca Nicaragua El Salvador, Honduras Dinder National Park Sudan Ethiopia Dnieper River Floodplain Belarus Ukraine Dniester-Turunchuk Crossrivers Area Ukraine Moldova Dunajské luhy Slovakia Austria, Hungary Ecosistema Ajos-Bavispe, zona de influencia Cuenca Río San Pedro Mexico United States El Pantanal Boliviano Plurinational State of Bolivia Brazil Emajoe Suursoo Mire and Piirissaar Island Estonia Russian Federation Evros Delta Greece Turkey Gambie-Koulountou Guinea Senegal Gambie-Oundou-Liti Guinea Senegal Gandoca-Manzanillo Costa Rica Panama

Gbedin Wetlands Liberia Guinea Gomishan Lagoon Islamic Republic of Iran Turkmenistan Govater Bay and Hur-e-Bahu Islamic Republic of Iran Pakistan Haff Réimech Luxembourg Germany Hamun-e-Puzak, south end Islamic Republic of Iran Afghanistan Hamun-e-Saberi & Hamun-e- Helmand Islamic Republic of Iran Afghanistan Hawar Islands Bahrain Saudi Arabia Honghe National Nature Reserve China Russian Federation Hula Nature Reserve Israel Syria, Lebanon Humedal Caribe Noreste Costa Rica Nicaragua Humedal Maquenque Costa Rica Nicaragua Humedales Chaco Argentina Paraguay Humedales del Delta del Río Colorado Mexico United States Indus Delta Pakistan India Iput River Floodplain Belarus Russian Federation Iron Gates Natural Park Romania Serbia Jiwani Coastal Wetland Pakistan Islamic Republic of Iran Jizera Headwaters Czech Republic Poland Kainuunkylä Islands Finland Sweden Kalmthoutse Heide Belgium The Netherlands Kartal Lake Ukraine Moldova, Romania Khingano-Arkharinskaya Lowland Russian Federation China Klingnauer Stausee Switzerland Germany Koh Kapik and Associated Islets Cambodia Thailand Koshi Tappu Nepal India Kosi Bay South Africa Mozambique Kryva Bay and Kryva Spit Ukraine Russian Federation Kugurlui Lake Ukraine Moldova, Romania Kurgalsky Peninsula Russian Federation Estonia Kvisleflået Norway Sweden Kyliiske Mouth Ukraine Romania Lac Saint-François Canada United States Lago Titicaca Plurinational State of Bolivia Peru Lago Titicaca Peru Plurinational State of Bolivia Lake Buir and its surrounding wetlands Mongolia China Lake Chad Wetlands in Nigeria Nigeria Niger, Chad, Cameroon Lake Chilwa Malawi Mozambique Lake Dengizkul Uzbekistan Turkmenistan

Lake Khanka Russian Federation China Lake Mburo-Nakivali Wetland System Uganda Tanzania Lake Mikri Prespa Greece Albania, Macedonia Lake Natron Basin United Republic of Tanzania Kenya Lake Prespa North Macedonia Albania, Greece Lake Shkodra and River Buna Albania Montenegro Lake Uvs and its surrounding wetlands Mongolia Russian Federation Lätäseno-Hietajoki Mires Finland Norway Latorica Slovakia Ukraine Le Rhône genevois - Vallons de l'Allondon et de la Laire Switzerland France Les Grangettes Switzerland France Les Rivières de Mbaéré- Bodingué Central African Republic Congo Lets'eng-la-Letsie Lesotho South Africa Liadova-Murafa Ukraine Moldova Libenga Congo Democratic Republic of the Congo Long Point Canada United States Los Guatuzos Nicaragua Costa Rica United Kingdom of Great Lough Foyle Britain and Northern Ireland Ireland Lower Dniester Republic of Moldova Ukraine Lower Inn Reservoirs Austria Germany Lower Prut Lakes Republic of Moldova Romania Makuleke Wetlands South Africa Zimbabwe, Mozambique Mongol Daguur Mongolia Russian Federation Mullet Pond Netherlands France Mures Floodplain Romania Hungary Nadsiannia Raised Bog Ukraine Poland Natal Drakensberg Park South Africa Lesotho Ndumo Game Reserve South Africa Mozambique Neretva River Delta Croatia Bosnia and Herzegovina Niagara River Corridor United States of America Canada Niger Source Guinea Sierra Leone Niger-Tinkisso Guinea Mali Nong Bong Kai Non-Hunting Area Thailand Laos, Myanmar Northern Part of the Dniester Liman Ukraine Moldova Okavango Delta System Botswana Angola, Namibia Old Crow Flats Canada United States Olt - Danube Confluence Romania Bulgaria

Orange River Mouth Namibia South Africa Orange River Mouth South Africa Namibia Osveiski Belarus Latvia, Russian Federation Palmar de las Islas y las Salinas de San José Plurinational State of Bolivia Paraguay Palmar Yatay Argentina Uruguay Pape Wetland Complex Latvia Lithuania Parc National de la Rusizi Burundi Democratic Republic of the Congo Democratic Republic of the Parc national des Mangroves Congo Angola, Congo Democratic Republic of the Parc national des Virunga Congo Uganda, Rwanda Parc National du Diawling Mauritania Senegal Parque Andino Juncal Chile Argentina Parque Nacional Arrecifes de Xcalak Mexico Belize Parque Nacional del Pantanal Matogrosense Brazil Plurinational State of Bolivia Parque Nacional Laguna del Tigre Guatemala Mexico Parque Nacional Lagunas de Montebello Mexico Guatemala Partie Camerounaise du Fleuve Ntem Cameroon Equitorial Guinea Partie camerounaise du fleuve Central African Republic, Sangha Cameroon Democratic Republic of the Congo Partie Camerounaise du Lac Tchad Cameroon Cameroon, Niger, Nigeria Partie Tchadienne du lac Tchad Chad Cameroon, Niger, Nigeria Pasvik Norway Russian Federation Peatland of the Izera River Valley Poland Czech Republic United Kingdom of Great Pettigoe Plateau Britain and Northern Ireland Ireland Plaines d'inondation des Bahr Aouk et Salamat Chad Central African Republic Plaines d'inondation du Logone et les dépressions Toupouri Chad Cameroon Point Pelee Canada United States Polesye Valley of River Bug Belarus Poland, Ukraine Princess Sirindhorn Wildlife Sanctuary Thailand Malasia Pskovsko-Chudskaya Lowland Russian Federation Estonia Punta de Manabique Guatemala Honduras

Rába valley Hungary Austria Refugio de Vida Silvestre Río San Juan Nicaragua Costa Rica Reserva Costa Atlantica de Tierra del Fuego Argentina Chile Reserva de Usos Múltiples Río Sarstún Guatemala Belize Reserva Ecológica de Manglares Cayapas-Mataje Ecuador Colombia Reserva Natural del Estuario del Muni Equatorial Guinea Gabon Réserve de faune de Binder- Léré Chad Cameroon Reserve de faune de Togodo Togo Benin Rheindelta Austria Germany, Switzerland Plurinational State of Bolivia, Río Negro Paraguay Brazil Río Ntem o Campo Equatorial Guinea Cameroon, Gabon Rio Pilcomayo Argentina Paraguay Rives du Lac Léman France Switzerland Runn of Kutch Pakistan India Rwenzori Mountains Ramsar Site Uganda Democratic Republic of the Congo Salar de Surire Chile Plurinational State of Bolivia Argentina, Plurinational State of Salar de Tara Chile Bolivia Salar del Huasco Chile Plurinational State of Bolivia San Jiang National Nature Reserve China Russian Federation Sango Bay-Musambwa Island- Kagera Wetland System (SAMUKA) Uganda Tanzania Sankarani-Fié Guinea Mali, Cote d'Ivoire Santuario Nacional Los Manglares de Tumbes Peru Ecuador Sapais de Castro Marim Portugal Spain Sarstoon Temash National Park Belize Guatemala Schorren van de Beneden Schelde Belgium The Netherlands Secoveljske soline Slovenia Croatia Shadegan Marshes & mudflats of Khor-al Amaya & Khor Musa Islamic Republic of Iran Iraq Shatsk Lakes Ukraine Belarus, Poland Siikalahti Bay Area Finland Russian Federation

Sistema de Humedales Cuyamel-Omoa Honduras Guatemala Sistema de Humedales de la Zona Sur de Honduras Honduras El Salvador, Nicaragua Sistema de Humedales Remanentes del Delta del Río Colorado Mexico United States Site Ramsar des Monts Birougou Gabon Congo Skadarsko Jezero Montenegro Albania Skocjanske Jame Slovenia Italy United Kingdom of Great Slieve Beagh Britain and Northern Ireland Ireland Storkölen Sweden Norway Šumavská rašeliniště Czech Republic Germany Sundarban Wetland India Bangladesh Sundarbans Reserved Forest Bangladesh India Szaporca Hungary Croatia Burundi, Democratic Republic of Tanganyika Zambia the Congo, Tanzania Tanguar Haor Bangladesh India Tinfunque Paraguay Argentina Tijuana River National Estuarine Research Reserve United States of America Mexico Tobol-Ishim Forest-steppe Russian Federation Kazakhstan Tonda Wildlife Management Area Papua New Guinea Indonesia Torey Lakes Russian Federation Mongolia Třeboňská rašeliniště Czech Republic Austria Tubli Bay Bahrain Saudi Arabia Turtle Beaches/Coral Reefs of Tongaland South Africa Mozambique Unguri-Holosnita Republic of Moldova Ukraine Unterer Inn, Haiming-Neuhaus Germany Austria Unterer Niederrhein Germany The Netherlands Unteres Odertal, Schwedt Germany Poland Upper Drava River Austria Germany, Italy, Slovenia United Kingdom of Great Upper Lough Erne Britain and Northern Ireland Ireland Vallées de la Scarpe et de l'Escaut France Belgium Volga Delta Russian Federation Kazakhstan Waldviertel ponds, peat bogs & floodplains Austria Czech Republic

Warta River Mouth National Park Poland Germany Wasur National Park Indonesia Papua New Guinea Waza Logone Floodplain Cameroon Nigeria, Chad Westerschelde & Saeftinghe Netherlands Belgium Wetlands of Orava Basin Slovakia Poland Xingkai Lake National Nature Reserve China Russian Federation Zeya-Bureya Plains Russian Federation China Zones humides et marines de Saint-Martin France The Netherlands Zwin Belgium The Netherlands

Additional transboundary wetlands were then added from list of 234 transboundary wetlands developed by Griffin and Ali (2012), amounting to twelve additional wetlands (Table 6).

Table 6. Transboundary wetlands listed by Griffin and Ali (2012). The Ramsar Sites already identified in Tables 4 and 5 are omitted from this list.

Wetland Name Country Riparian Complexe Kokorou-Namga Niger Burkina Faso, Mali Himalayan High Altitude Wetlands Bhutan, China, India, Kyrgyzstan, Nepal, Pakistan Djoudj Senegal Mauritania Hutovo Blato Bosnia and Herzogovina Croatia Nature Park Kopacki rit Croatia Serbia Lonjsko Polje & Mokro Polje Croatia Bosnia and Herzegovina Lac Tchad Niger Chad, Nigeria, Cameroon Pusztaszer Hungary Austria, Romania Lake of Seven Islands Nature Reserve Poland Russian Federation Biebrzanaki National Park Poland Belarus Poleski National Park Poland Ukraine Zone humide de moyen Niger II Niger Benin

An additional nine transboundary Ramsar Sites were identified by spatial analysis (Table 7).

Table 7. Transboundary Ramsar Sites identified by spatial analysis. (Data sources: Ramsar Sites Information Service; UIA World Countries Boundaries shapefile.)

Wetland Name Country Riparian

Les Hautes Fagnes Belgium Germany Guapore Biological Reserve Brazil Bolivia Taim Ecological Station Brazil Uruguay Leketi-Mbama Congo Gabon Complejo de Humedales Cuyabeno Lagartococha Yasuní Ecuador Peru Basse-Mana French Guiana Suriname Parc Naturel des Mangroves du Fleuve Cacheu Guinea-Bissau Gambia Elephant Marsh Malawi Mozambique Bwabwata-Okavango Ramsar Site Namibia Angola, Botswana

The search for transboundary wetlands continued online through the Google search engine and identified organizations that focus on transboundary wetlands, which added four more transboundary wetlands to the database. These include: Laguna Madre (Mexico and United States); Sio-Siteko (Kenya and Uganda); Sango Bay – Minziro Wetland landscape (Uganda and Tanzania); and Semliki Delta (Democratic Republic of the Congo and Uganda).

This research brings the list of transboundary wetlands to a total of 300 (See Appendix for full Transboundary Wetland Database).

5.1.2 Options to manage transboundary wetlands

The spatial analysis of transboundary wetlands was then expanded to inspect where transboundary wetlands fall within transboundary river basins (Figure 2), and furthermore where they have river basin organizations (RBOs). The results of this analysis can be found in Appendix 1.

Figure 2. World map with transboundary river basins and transboundary Ramsar Sites. River basins are outlined and shaded in blue; Ramsar Sites are indicated by green dots. This map was created in QGIS using references outlined in Table 3.

The total number of wetlands considered in this thesis is 322 (the total of 300 mentioned earlier excludes the 22 that are Transboundary Ramsar Sites because they are complexes of individual Ramsar Sites). For the purpose of this particular analysis of RBOs, the total number of wetlands considered is 257 – this includes the 22 Transboundary Ramsar Sites and excludes the 65 individual Ramsar Sites that are encompassed in those 22. The 65 individual Ramsar Sites are excluded under the assumption that they could be managed by any RBO active in the basin that encompasses the transboundary wetland area. Thus, each of those individual Ramsar Sites is lumped into its larger Transboundary Ramsar Site.

Of the 257 transboundary wetlands considered in this part of the analysis: 159 fall within international river basins that have an RBO to which all of the riparian countries are party to (Category 2); 20 wetlands are in an area where there is an RBO that not all riparian countries are involved in (Category 1); and 78 wetlands are in an area with no RBO (Category 0). Of the 78 wetlands that fall outside of the geographic governance of an RBO, 39 are not in international river basins.

Table 8. Regional distribution of transboundary wetlands with RBOs. Category 0 indicates no RBO; Category 1 indicates an RBO that not all countries riparian to the wetland are members of; Category 2 indicates the presence of an RBO to which all countries riparian to the wetland are members of.

Category 0 1 2 Africa 11 2 45 Asia 16 0 14 Europe 29 18 68

Neotropics 19 0 19 North America 2 0 13 Oceania 1 0 0

5.2 Case Studies

This research uses three case studies to examine to what extent transboundary wetlands are linked to cooperation. The case studies were selected based on the most different case design, also called the maximum variation sampling type (Creswell and Poth, 2018), and include the Wadden Sea, Okavango Delta, and Hamoun Wetlands. There are considerable differences between these sites, given the different ecosystem types they represent. However, there are also similarities in that they are all managed as wetlands and are, to varying extents, governed by the Ramsar Convention.

The Wadden Sea was selected as an example of a Transboundary Ramsar Site that is actively managed by all co-riparians. Of the 22 Transboundary Ramsar Sites, only three of them fit this criteria: the Wadden Sea, Rhin superieur / Oberrhein -- Oberrnein / Rhin superieur, and Transboundary Ramsar Site Neusiedler See-Seewinkel - Ferto-Hansag (according to information available from the Ramsar Sites Information Service).

The Okavango Delta was selected as an example of a transboundary wetland that has portions designated as individual Ramsar Sites but is not a Transboundary Ramsar Site. There are likely many other wetlands that fit this criteria, but the Okavango Delta was selected in part due to the availability of information.

The Hamoun Wetlands were selected as a documented example of an area that has experienced conflict over a transboundary wetland. This is the only example of wetland conflict that surfaced during my preliminary research. This case was selected to see whether cooperation is still present over wetlands in an area where there has been conflict.

The Okavango Delta and Hamoun Wetlands are both endorheic, meaning that they do not flow into other water bodies. The Wadden Sea is distinct from the other two selected cases in that it is a marine area. Thus, the Wadden Sea has uses and considerations that are different. However, the wetlands in the Wadden Sea are an area of interest for the riparian counties, and the site is recognized by the Ramsar Convention, so it is considered in this research.

5.2.1 Wadden Sea

The Wadden Sea (Figure 3) is a 12,000 km2 continuous expanse of coastal wetlands, mudflats and sandflats shared by the Netherlands, Germany and Denmark (Ramsar Secretariat, 2015) that accounts for approximately 60% of the tidal area in Europe and North Africa (Dettmann and Enemark, 2004). During low tide, the world’s largest contiguous stretch of tidal flats emerges here. The Wadden Sea serves as an example of a transboundary Ramsar wetland that is managed jointly between all riparian parties. The Netherlands, Germany and Denmark manage thirteen individual Ramsar sites collectively under the Wadden Sea Transboundary Ramsar Site (RSIS, 2005). The area provides many ecosystem benefits, such as flood protection, sediment catchment, and shoreline stabilization. The threats to the area include fisheries, resource extraction, and military training. This site, which is the largest Transboundary Ramsar Site, was selected as an example of demonstrated cooperation over a transboundary wetland.

Figure 3. Map of the Wadden Sea including the associated Ramsar Sites in Denmark, Germany, and The Netherlands. Orange dots represent individual Ramsar Sites. Blue hatched areas are transboundary river basins. The Wadden Sea Transboundary Ramsar Site does not fall within an international river basin; it is a marine area. This map was created in QGIS using references outlined in Table 3.

Management Mechanisms

The Wadden Sea is governed by multiple international laws. In addition to the Ramsar Convention, the Wadden Sea is guided by: the 1972 World Heritage Convention; the 1979 Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals; the 1979 Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats; the 1992 Convention on Biological Diversity; and the 1992 Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic (Common Wadden Sea Secretariat, 2010). Denmark, Germany and the The Netherlands jointly manage the Wadden Sea under the Trilateral Cooperation on the Protection of the Wadden Sea (TWSC). An evaluation found that the TWSC has “functioned successfully since 1978” (TWSC, 2010). The same document provides interesting details about the governance structures of the TWSC: there are two decision-making bodies – the Trilateral Wadden Sea Governmental Council and the Wadden Sea Board, both of which are supported by the Common Wadden Sea Secretariat (TWSC, 2010). The Wadden Sea also is of interest to

many non-governmental organizations, academics, and other stakeholders, who are organized under the Partnership Hub of the Wadden Sea World Heritage

Wetlands are managed by the TWSC through the Wadden Sea Plan and the Ramsar Convention. International cooperation for the protection of the Wadden Sea was sparked by threats of ecological destruction from increasing tourism and industry (Dettmann and Enemark, 2004). The international Wadden Sea is now a nearly continuous expanse of protected areas, designated independently and jointly by the riparian countries. Due to differences in conservation policies between Denmark, Germany and The Netherlands, initial protections for the Wadden Sea were formulated independently and the countries were hesitant to sign a legally-binding international arrangement for the area (Dettmann and Enemark, 2004). The cooperation was initiated by the 1982 Joint Declaration which documents the countries’ intention for consultation and coordination of activities related to the Wadden Sea, and directly references a number of international laws, including the Ramsar Convention. Dettmann and Enemark emphasize that the 1982 Joint Declaration was signed because, although it mentions international laws, it is a declaration of intent rather than a legally-binding instrument itself (2004). This demonstrates the breadth of arrangements, both legal and voluntary, that can influence the protection of transboundary wetlands.

In reference to wetlands, the 2010 Wadden Sea Plan remarks that, “…marshes and wetlands are of utmost importance to a number of breeding bird species… which are under protection of the EC Birds Directive” (Wadden Sea Plan, 2010). Much of the habitat of the Wadden Sea and surrounding areas is designated as Special Protection Areas, as per the EC Birds Directive, and as Special Areas of Conservation, through the Habitats Directive. It is clear that a main driver of wetland conservation in the Wadden Sea is the preservation of habitat for migratory birds. The three focus areas of the TWSC are Conservation, Sustainable Development, and Environmental Education.

The 2010 Wadden Sea Plan notes that, “There is a requirement within the Directive for the linkages between surface and groundwater and water quantity and water quality to be taken into account… and moreover, consideration must be given to the water needs of wetlands” (CWSS, 2010). Additionally, the TWSC coordinates joint monitoring of the Wadden Sea through the Trilateral Monitoring and Assessment Programme. Monitoring includes considerations of morphology, ecology, wildlife, and human activities, with the aim of informing policy. In these ways, the TWSC guides the management of wetlands of the Wadden Sea.

Measuring Cooperation

Using an abbreviated version of the SDG Indicator 6.5.2 methodology applied to the Wadden Sea, we find evidence of cooperation over wetlands in the Wadden Sea (Table 9). As discussed, the Wadden Sea is overseen by the Trilateral Cooperation for the Protection of the Wadden Sea, in which Denmark, Germany and The Netherlands are involved at the Ministerial level. Through this body, the countries meet tri-annually and agree on the parameters of the Wadden Sea Plan to jointly manage the area. The Wadden Sea Plan directly mentions the conservation of wetlands for bird habitat, as discussed. The mechanism for data exchange is the Trilateral Monitoring and Assessment Program, through which the three countries coordinate monitoring of agreed-upon parameters (CWSS, 2010).

Table 9. Results of using SDG Indicator 6.5.2 Methodology to measure cooperation in the Wadden Sea.

Indicator Wadden Sea Joint Body Yes Communication Yes Joint mgmt. plan Yes Data exchange Yes

The TWSC also takes on a role in broader international wetland conservation. The TWSC signed memorandums of understanding with the Republic of Korea, Mauritania, and the United Kingdom in order to promote the conservation of tidal flats and habitat corridors for migratory birds (TWSC, 2010). These partnerships build capacity by sharing and exchanging knowledge and lessons learned, coordinating public messaging around conservation initiatives, and scheduling regular exchange visits for further collaboration. In these ways, the TWSC takes an active role in managing wetlands at the international level.

“The case of the Wadden Sea clearly shows that establishing transboundary wetland management is a step-by-step process that needs patience, development of common targets, monitoring and research. The cooperation will only be successful if there are clear benefits for all parties involved.” - Contributed by Frank Alberts, RIZA. (Chatterjee et al., 2008).

5.2.2 Okavango Delta

The Okavango Delta is a 3,500km2 to 12,000 km2 area in central Southern Africa (Wolski and Murray- Hudson, 2006() that is shared by Angola, Botswana, and Namibia. The size of the Delta varies considerably based on flow; inflow to the Okavango Delta annually ranges between 7 to 15 million km3 (Jansen and Madzwamuse, 2003). The Okavango Delta attracts tourism which accounts for about 13% of Botswana’s gross domestic product. During dry periods, the Delta grasses are a key grazing site for livestock and wildlife.

This serves as an example where only two out of the three riparian countries are party to the Ramsar Convention – Angola is not a contracting party. Furthermore, the Okavango is not managed as a Transboundary Ramsar Site. Botswana and Namibia each recognize portions of the Okavango Delta as individual Ramsar Sites: Okavango Delta System in Botswana and Bwabwata-Okavango Ramsar Site in Namibia (Figure 4). The Okavango Delta is in the Okavango River Basin.

Figure 4. Map of the Okavango Delta, including the associated Ramsar Sites in Botswana and Namibia. The blue lines are boundaries of the Okavango River Basin. This map was created in QGIS using references outlined in Table 3.

Management Mechanisms

Although the Okavango Delta is not recognized as a Transboundary Ramsar Site, the three riparian countries jointly manage their resources. The formal organization present in the Okavango is the Permanent Cubango-Okavango River Basin Water Commission (OKACOM), a River Basin Organization created by the three riparian countries to manage the shared water resources of the Cubango-Okavango River Basin, including the Okavango Delta. Under the OKACOM Agreement, the three riparian countries promote “coordinated and environmentally sustainable regional water resources development, while addressing the legitimate social and economic needs of each of the riparian states” (OKACOM, 2011).

The primary concern in the Okavango Delta is to support tourism in Botswana. In terms of the Okavango River Basin, Botswana and Namibia are downstream and Angola is upstream. The biggest water use in the Okavango Basin is flows to the wetlands (Ashton & Neal, 2003), which support biodiversity and the economy especially of Botswana, although Angola contributes about 95% of the flow (Green et al., 2013). Given the differences in precipitation between the countries (Angola receives about four times more precipitation than the downstream countries), OKACOM seeks to “anticipate and reduce the

unintended, unacceptable and often unnecessary impacts that occur as a result of uncoordinated resource development” (OKACOM, 2011).

Although OKACOM manages the Okavango Delta at the international level, it is also important to consider the national laws and recognition of wetlands for each riparian country. Parts of the Okavango Delta are designated as Ramsar Sites by Botswana and Namibia. The Okavango Delta Ramsar Site in Botswana is one of the largest Ramsar Sites in the world, about 65,000 km2 (Ramsar Secretariat, 2020) and is “one of the world’s most valuable wetland resources” (Mfundisi, 2008). The Okavango Delta Ramsar Site falls within Ngamiland district and is hydrologically connected to both the Okavango River and the Cuando/Linyanti River (Jansen and Madzwamuse, 2003). Approximately 72% of the Okavango Delta Ramsar Site is also protected by the 1992 National Parks Act, and its entirety is also managed by Botswana’s 2008 Okavango Delta Management Plan.

The creation of the 2008 Okavango Delta Management Plan (ODMP) was in response to the designation of the Okavango Delta Ramsar Site and calls for the sustainable use of natural resources. The ODMP was developed by the Botswana Department of Environmental affairs with community involvement and support, recognizing the importance of the Okavango Delta for water supply and livelihoods, with the shared vision of, “A carefully managed, well functioning ecosystem that equitably and sustainably provides benefits for local, national and international stakeholders” (ODMP, 2008). Design of the ODMP was supported by funding from the Ramsar Secretariat. Technical and financial support for the ODMP was also provided by the Danish Development Agency, German Development Service, Swedish International Development Agency, and The World Conservation Union (IUCN).

The ODMP effort was largely facilitated by the University of Botswana Harry Oppenheimer Okavango Research Centre (ODMP, 2008). Implementation of the ODMP is principally placed in the hands of the community. The ODMP notes that there are 21 community-based organizations in the Okavango Delta Ramsar Site that manage various natural resources (ODMP, 2008). Community-based organizations are “given the responsibility to utilise and manage the wildlife and other natural resources” in their specified resource areas (Jansen and Madzwamuse, 2003). While Jansen and Madzwamuse identify lack of capacity and empowerment as hindrances to successful Delta management by community-based organizations (2003), Green et al. emphasize the importance of this type of meaningful public participation to build local capacity (2013).

While the ODMP is an effort of Botswana, both Angola and Namibia endorse the national plan through OKACOM. This action demonstrates that, “within the region joint management of shared resources is possible and achievable” (ODMP, 2008). The ODMP seems to be a precursor that will inform the development of an integrated management plan for the Basin by OKACOM. While it is a goal of the ODMP to set up a platform for data sharing and information exchange, there has been no coordinated long-term monitoring. Data on the Okavango Delta is described as, “widely scattered… not standardized and… not easily accessible” (ODMP, 2008).

Measuring Cooperation

Using an abbreviated version of the SDG Indicator 6.5.2 methodology reveals some evidence of cooperation over wetlands in the Okavango Delta, but also some gaps (Table 10). As discussed, the Permanent Okavango River Basin Water Commission (OKACOM) is the joint management mechanism for the river basin in which the Okavango Delta is located. Angola, Botswana and Namibia participate through OKACOM in regular dialogue about the Basin. Since the Okavango Delta Management Plan is a national effort, even though it has international endorsement of the co-riparian countries, it is not clear whether it should be considered as a joint management plan for this analysis. While OKACOM does focus on wetlands to some extent, it currently does not oversee a wetland-focused management plan. As described above, there is no formalized data exchange for the Okavango Delta, although it has been stated as a priority.

Table 10. Results of SDG Indicator 6.5.2 Methodology to measure cooperation in the Okavango Delta.

Indicator Okavango Delta Joint Body Yes Communication Yes Joint mgmt. plan Maybe Data exchange No

5.2.3 Hamoun Wetlands

The Hamoun Wetlands are a large inland complex along the border between Afghanistan and Iran (Figure 5). The area of the wetland complex ranges from 2,000 to 5,700km2, although it can be as low as 0 in dry years (Mahdavi, 1997 as cited by Behrouzi-rad, 2009). The current status Due to the

environmental, social and economic significance of the Hirmand/Helmand River Basin, it has been “a source of water dispute [between Iran and Afghanistan] for more than 200 years” (Mianabadi, 2020).

Figure 5. Map of the Hamoun Wetlands including the associated Ramsar Sites designated by Iran. The blue line shows the boundary of the Helmand River Basin. This map was created in QGIS using references outlined in Table 3.

While Iran is party to the Ramsar Convention, Afghanistan is not. Iran recognizes its portions of the Hamoun Wetlands under two Ramsar Sites: Hamun-e-Puzak, south end; and Hamun-e-Saberi & Hamun- e-Helmand (Ramsar Sites Information Service, 2020). While the Iranian portion of Hamun-e-Puzak is a Ramsasr Site, the majority of that wetland falls within Afghanistan. Flow to the Hamoun Wetlands comes from the Hirmand/Helmand River.

Management Mechanisms

The 1973 Helmand River Water Treaty sets allocation of certain waters of the Helmand River, both in terms of quantity and quality (FAO, 2020). While the Helmand River Water Treaty does not set environmental flow requirements for the wetlands, it does mention the possibility of drought and the need to develop a plan for the “Helmand Delta” (Goes et al., 2016). The Helmand River Commission is the river basin organization present in the area, although it has been largely inactive. Conflict over

scarce water resources has occurred over the last 200 years in the Helmand River Basin and is exacerbated by a lack of trust between the riparian countries, especially when it comes to hydrological data (Mianabadi et al., 2020).

In the absence of international institutions active on the Hamoun Wetlands, we can look instead to national mechanisms for managing the wetlands. On the Afghan side, the Helmand River Basin Agency manages water based on hydrologic boundaries (Goes et al., 2016). In Iran, water is managed by the Ministry of Energy and the Department of the Environment: the Ministry of Energy is responsible for coordinating water supply from the Helmand River in Afghanistan; the Department of the Environment is responsible for subsequently getting water to the wetlands (interview correspondence). Recently, United Nations Development Program partnered with Iran to design and implement a restoration plan for the Hamoun Wetlands (Tehran Times, 2020).

Management of the Hamoun Wetlands relies on water from the Helmand River, which originates in Afghanistan. There is no evidence of formal cooperation between Afghanistan and Iran specifically on the wetlands. An interviewee reported that there was historically cooperation in the Sistan Region, including digging irrigation canals both for agriculture and to direct water to the wetlands. However, this seemed to end after the border was designated (see Mianabadi et al., 2020). The interviewee reported that there is sometimes still informal cooperation in this region, especially when Afghanistan receives too much water during springtime floods, but more research is needed to fully understand what is occurring on the ground.

The current status of the Hamoun Wetlands is severe degradation. According to a report from the United Nations Development Programme, the Hamoun Wetland area “substantially declined” from 2005 to 2013 (UNDP) (Figure 6). They are listed on the Montreux Record, which is a list of Ramsar Sites “where changes in ecological character have occurred, are occurring, or are likely to occur as a result of technological developments, pollution or other human interference” (Ramsar, 2007).

Figure 6. Extent of the Hamoun Wetlands (Source: UNDP). Images from spring in (left to right) 2005, 2009, 2013.

Measuring Cooperation

Using an abbreviated version of the SDG Indicator 6.5.2 methodology applied to the Hamoun Wetlands reveals no clear evidence of cooperation (Table 11). While the Helmand River Commission is an RBO, it has largely been inactive and has no clear mandate related to wetlands anyway. Iran and Afganistan do communicate on water allocation from the Helmand River, governed by the Helmand River Water Treaty, and that water is used, to some extent, to sustain the wetlands. However, again, it is not clear that there is more direct communication between Iran and Afghanistan about their shared wetlands. There is no joint wetland management plan or exchange of wetland-related data between the countries.

Table 11. Results of employing SDG Indicator 6.5.2 Methodology to measure cooperation in the Hamoun Wetlands.

Indicator Hamoun Wetlands Joint Body No Communication Maybe Joint mgmt. plan No Data exchange No

5.3 Document Analysis

Twenty-two documents were analyzed and coded to better understand how transboundary wetlands are managed, what motivates wetland action, and to what extent countries co-manage their shared wetlands. The documents included scientific and policy articles, declarations and agreements, and analyses from organizations working in each of the three case study sites (see Appendix for full list of documents).

The codes demonstrate the prevalence of certain themes throughout documents related to each case study (Table 12).

Table 12. Results of the document analysis. Wadden Sea Okavango Delta Hamoun Wetlands # documents 5 6 11 pages 448 357 335 year range 1994-2017 2003-2019 2011-2020 Division 20 90 125 Cooperation 455 418 247 Formal/legal 145 302 266 Voluntary 14 5 9 Nature 989 1058 680 Culture 147 60 116 Climate Change 23 114 73 Tourism 145 203 133 Agriculture 64 184 281 Protection 761 263 300 Wetland 309 162 438

The results were then disaggregated due to the use of multiple words to find certain themes. For example, the theme of “nature” included the words “nature,” “ecosystem,” “biodiversity,” “wildlife,” and “species,” so the total was then divided by five (the number of corresponding words searched) to obtain an “unweighted” value (Table 13).

Table 13. Disaggregated results of the document analysis. Wadden Sea Okavango Delta Hamoun Wetlands # documents 5 6 11 pages 448 357 335 year range 1994-2017 2003-2019 2011-2020 TOTAL Division 7 30 42 79

Cooperation 114 105 62 281 Legal 48 101 89 238 Voluntary 14 5 9 28 Nature 198 212 136 546 Culture 147 60 116 323 Climate Change 23 114 73 210 Tourism 73 102 67 242 Agriculture 64 184 281 529 Protection 381 132 150 663 Wetland 309 162 438 909

The first four themes, Division, Cooperation, Legal and Voluntary, point to how the wetland is managed and to what extent the riparian countries are involved. Overall there seem to be more instances of cooperation than division, as well as more legal than voluntary. The next six themes aim to capture the reasons that countries interact with their transboundary wetlands. The highest occurring themes were protection, nature, and agriculture. While protection and nature were high for all three case studies, agriculture was high only for Okavango Delta and Hamoun Wetlands.

Section 6: Analysis and Discussion

6.1 Spatial Analysis

6.1.1 Identifying transboundary wetlands

At the outset of this research, there was limited information on the extent and distribution of transboundary wetlands. Previous research compiled a list of 234 transboundary wetlands and mapped them (Griffin, 2012). The Ramsar Sites Information Service provides a list of 22 transboundary Ramsar sites, and identifies an additional 252 Ramsar wetlands that “extend onto the territory of one or more other countries” (RSIS, 2020). The database created in this research compiles this information into one location and adds additional wetlands that are described as transboundary in academic literature, by other organizations (see Appendix or “Source” column in the database for a list of documents and organizations included), or by spatial analysis.

The new Transboundary Wetland Database and map present interesting observations on the regional distribution of Ramsar Sites (Table 14). The Ramsar Secretariat identifies six regions: Africa, Asia, Europe, Neotropics, North America, and Oceania. Of the world’s 22 Transboundary Ramsar Sites, 18 are in Europe and four are in Africa. Of the 232 individual Ramsar Sites that are transboundary according to this research: 42% are in Europe; 22% are in Africa; 15% are in the Neotropics; 13% are in Asia, 6% are in North America, and one is in Oceania. The three transboundary wetlands found by this research that are not designated as Ramsar sites are all in Africa.

Table 14. Regional distribution of transboundary (TB) wetlands by Ramsar designation status (non- Ramsar only includes the limited number documented in this research).

Region TB Ramsar Site Individual Ramsar Non-Ramsar Africa 4 51 3 Asia 0 30 Europe 18 97 Neotropics 0 38 North America 0 15 Oceania 0 1 Total 22 232 3

Europe has the highest regional distribution of Ramsar sites that are transboundary. Given the numbers of Ramsar sites identified as crossing country boundaries in Asia, the Neotropics, and North America, it is surprising to see none designated as Transboundary Ramsar Sites. Across all regions, there are likely more transboundary wetlands that are not designated as Ramsar sites that are beyond the scope of this research. It is interesting to note that the three transboundary wetlands identified by this research that are not Ramsar Sites are all within Africa; the identification of these three sites by the Nile Basin Initiative (a river basin organization) demonstrates commitment to transboundary wetland management.

Spatial mapping of Ramsar Sites revealed that there are many individual Ramsar Sites that could be contiguous with individual Ramsar Sites in a neighboring country. For example, the Jizera Headwaters Ramsar Site in the Czech Republic neighbors the Peatland of the Izera River Valley in Poland. Given that both countries are party to the Ramsar Convention and have indicated their recognition of the wetland area individually, there could be an opportunity for the countries to share resources and jointly manage the two wetlands as one Transboundary Ramsar Site.

Additionally, the online search for transboundary wetlands brought cases to my attention that fall outside of the scope of this research. Namatala Wetland is entirely in Uganda, but it is an interesting case of cross-county wetland conflict (Ostrovskaya et al., 2012). It seems very likely that there are other wetlands that could be considered transboundary in this way, such as wetlands in the United States that are shared between states. Future research could build upon this by analyzing these other types of transboundary wetlands.

The newly created Transboundary Wetland Database is a huge step in understanding the global extent of transboundary wetlands, but it is not comprehensive. There are likely at least 300 more transboundary wetlands that are not reflected in the database, the identification of which is beyond the scope of this research.

6.1.2 Options to manage transboundary wetlands

Analysis comparing transboundary wetlands to transboundary river basins (see Appendix 1) reveals some overlap. About 62% of the transboundary wetlands considered in this analysis are in areas where there is an RBO to which all countries riparian of the wetland are members. More research is needed to explore to what extent RBOs are involved in the management of transboundary wetlands, but it is an important consideration building on the premise that formal organizations facilitate cooperation

(further explored below in Section 6.2.1). The presence of an RBO indicates that the countries that share the transboundary wetland already cooperate over water in some way, which could provide a platform to expand that cooperation to include the wetland (if it does not already).

Regionally, these transboundary wetlands that fall within an area under management by an RBO to which all of the countries riparian to the wetland are members are distributed as follows: 71% are in Africa and Europe (28% and 43% respectively); 20% are in North America and the Neotropics (8% and 12% respectively); and about 9% are in Asia; none are in Oceania. Again we find a high representation from Africa and Europe, which makes sense due to their higher representation in this research (as noted in Table 11). These results are roughly correlated with the regional distribution of the wetlands themselves.

Less than 10% of the transboundary wetlands fall somewhere in between: these wetlands are in river basins where at least one, but not all, of the countries riparian to the wetland are members of the RBO. On the one hand, this is promising because most of the countries that share transboundary wetlands (analyzed by this research) are already involved in an RBO that has full representation from the riparian countries. On the other hand, these twenty cases pose opportunities to increase representation in the RBOs.

This analysis also shows that 30% of the transboundary wetlands do not fall within the geographical governance of RBOs. Of these, 50% do not fall within transboundary river basins, and 50% fall within international river basins that do not have an RBO. Many of the wetlands that are not in transboundary river basins are coastal wetlands or high altitude wetlands. Regionally, the international basins identified in this section that do not have an RBO are distributed as follows: 31% Europe; 28% Neotropics; 23% Asia; 15% Africa; and 3% in North America. A comparison to the regional distribution of the total wetlands (noted in Table 11) demonstrates that wetlands in the Neotropics and Asia more often fall within international river basins that lack an RBO, while those in Africa and Europe less often.

The 39 transboundary wetlands that are within international river basins without an RBO pose an interesting opportunity. The presence of a Ramsar Site demonstrates an interest of the country to protect wetland resources. This occurring in the absence of an RBO reveals that other mechanisms exist that are conserving wetlands (i.e., there is some entity that decides to designate the Ramsar Site). For example, the Laguna Madre wetland, designated as a Ramsar Site by Mexico, is also protected as a transboundary wetland with the United States through the Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve

Network. Wetlands provide essential habitat for migratory birds, and thus there are many bird-focused organizations that aim to conserve wetland habitat. Future research could further explore these organizations. The Laguna Madre wetland is currently the only transboundary wetland recognized by the Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network.

6.2 Case Studies

The selected case studies represent a diversity of geographic and socioeconomic settings. The Wadden Sea is a coastal area that is important for navigation. This makes it quite different from the other two cases. The Okavango Delta and Hamoun Wetlands are both endorheic basins, meaning they do not flow into a river or the ocean. Even still, the document analysis indicates that each riparian country considers the site as a wetland (based on occurrence of the wetland theme in the document analysis). While the Okavango Delta had the lowest instances of the wetland theme, this may be due to the fact that deltas are themselves a type of wetland.

6.2.1 What are options to manage transboundary wetlands?

In the case of the Wadden Sea and the Okavango Delta, there are international governmental institutions that oversee wetland management. The Trilateral Cooperation for the Protection of the Wadden Sea (TWSC) meets every three years to discuss issues and make plans for the joint management and protection of the wetland habitats, such as mudflats and tidal marshes, of the Wadden Sea. As mentioned before, all three riparian countries (Denmark, Germany and The Netherlands) are involved in the TWSC. In the Okavango Delta, the three riparian countries (Angola, Botswana and Namibia) participate in the Permanent Okavango River Basin Water Commission (OKACOM) and meet regularly to direct the joint management of the Okavango Delta. The involvement of riparian countries in these organizations enhances transboundary cooperation, which in turn yields more benefits for the countries. For example, in the Okavango Delta, Botswana now advertises tourism to Angola, in an effort to stimulate Angola’s economy. This could be seen as an attempt at reciprocity since Angola supplies much of the flow into the Okavango Delta which is largely accessed in Botswana.

The Wadden Sea and Okavango Delta cases diverge in their wetland management mechanisms. While both TWSC and OKACOM focus on wetland management, the wetlands are managed through other mechanisms. Wetlands in the Wadden Sea are managed under the Wadden Sea Plan, which was written and agreed upon by the TWSC. While OKACOM has a thematic area of Environment and Biodiversity which, among other tasks, lists the development of a “wetland monitoring and management system” as

a key priority (OKACOM, 2020), the Okavango Delta Management Plan does not seem to have been coordinated or written by OKACOM.

A formal wetland management plan was not found from either country riparian to the Hamoun Wetlands. However, it is significant that Iran designated two of the wetlands as Ramsar Sites. This demonstrates a commitment to wetland conservation. According to the interviewee, when water is plentiful in the Sistan Region of Iran, wetlands have priority, second only to drinking water. While there are peaceful disputes over how to transport water, all sectors in the area support the supply of water to the wetlands. This is likely because of the reliance of the community on the wetlands for resources. The local population is primarily “employed in agriculture, fisheries, and handicraft production, with their income depending strongly on water resources and ecosystem services” (Maleki et al., 2019).

Due to the high reliance on the Hamoun Wetlands, it is in the community’s best interest to protect them. However, there is no clear evidence of reliable legal instruments to facilitate this, beyond the designation as Ramsar Sites. Furthermore, the Hamoun Wetlands are threatened, as evidenced by their shrinking extent and their listing on the Montreux Record. There could be a correlation between a lack of riparian cooperation and wetland degradation, but more research needs to be done to further explore any linkage.

The document analysis demonstrates that active, formal institutions may facilitate cooperation over shared wetland resources, benefitting both the wetlands and the riparian countries. In the case of the Hamoun Wetlands, the mere presence of the Helmand River Commission is not enough to manage the wetlands because the countries do not evidently work together on wetland management beyond the supply of water by Afghanistan from the Helmand River. Both the Okavango Delta and Wadden Sea have formal institutions, OKACOM and TWSC respectively, which meet regularly with involvement from multiple levels of government. The extent of wetland loss observed in the Hamoun Wetlands in not observed in the Wadden Sea or the Okavango Delta. Indeed, one goal of the Okavango Delta Management Plan is to prevent this type of wetland loss.

6.2.2 How do countries interact over transboundary wetlands?

The document analysis and coding reveals that words related to “cooperation” are two- to sixteen-times more likely to appear than words related to “division.” In the Hamoun Wetlands, where there has been documented conflict between Iran and Afghanistan (Shahbazbegian et al., 2016), the theme of

cooperation appeared nearly twice as many times as the theme of conflict. In the Okavango Delta, the cooperation theme appeared more than three times more than conflict. The Wadden Sea was the most extreme, with cooperative themes appearing about sixteen times more than the theme of conflict. This may be related to what the wetlands are managed for, or perhaps the type of document analyzed. The documents analyzed from the Wadden Sea were primarily policies and agreements, which aim to promote cooperation between the three riparian countries.

In any case, the high instances of the “cooperation” theme reveals that countries do indeed discuss cooperating over their transboundary wetlands. This has not previously been stated as such, and could provide a basis on which to consider adding wetlands to the transboundary water cooperation discourse (which focuses primarily on shared rivers).

The Wadden Sea documents were most related to the themes of Protection, Nature, and Culture, with a strong emphasis on migratory birds. In the Okavango Delta, the top three were Nature, Agriculture, and Protection, with some emphasis on tourism. The Hamoun Wetlands documents had the most relevance to Agriculture, Protection, and Nature, with concern of the wetlands drying out. Thus, all three case studies have high instances of Nature and Protection, which are in-line with the Ramsar Convention’s goal of conservation.

It is also important to consider other drivers of cooperation that may not be reflected in this research. For example, in the Wadden Sea, cooperation is also strong to preserve navigation and fisheries, and is strengthened by broader regional legal frameworks, for example the European Union Water Framework Directive and the Marine Directive. Culture also likely plays a role. Communities in the Okavango Delta have a strong tradition of protecting wetland resources due to their subsistence on them. Furthermore, cooperation may be more likely when countries have the political and economic means to cooperate. Meeting regularly and conducting other activities with riparian countries certainly comes with a monetary cost.

Equally important to consider are barriers to cooperation. Conflict has been present in the area of the Hamoun Wetlands for the past 200 years (Mianabadi et al., 2019). Political instability and concerns over water scarcity would naturally take priority over wetland conservation. However, recognizing the benefits of cooperation in the Wadden Sea and Okavango Delta, perhaps the Hamoun Wetlands could serve to aid in promoting formal cooperation between Afghanistan and Iran.

6.3 Document Analysis

The twenty-two documents analyzed (see Appendix) represent a variety of management plans, agreements, and scientific articles. In an ideal situation, these documents would all be management plans and agreements. However, in cases where these were not available in the English language, scientific articles and policy documents were used instead. While every attempt was made to select articles that would bring a wide variety of perspectives to the analysis, there is likely bias brought to this analysis from the types of documents selected for each case and the authors of the documents. This section will discuss the documents themselves and any associated biases based on the type of document, author, and other considerations.

6.3.1 Documents analyzed for the Wadden Sea

The five documents analyzed for the Wadden Sea were from the years 1994 to 2017 and supplied 448 pages. The documents are all formal agreements and plans (including joint declarations, strategies and governance arrangements). These documents are all formal and therefore bring a certain bias. For example, formal documents might be more likely to use terminology like “cooperative” as opposed to speaking of conflicts. These documents also might present an idealistic view of wetland management and transboundary relations, whereas on-the-ground observations or a review of secondary literature might present a more realistic picture of the situation. However, for the purposes of this research, the goal was to analyze management mechanisms, and formal documents provide the information needed for this.

6.3.2 Documents analyzed for the Okavango Delta

The six documents analyzed for the Okavango Delta were from the years 2003 to 2019 and provided 357 pages of information. The documents are from a combination of formal and secondary sources (three from each). Again, formal documents might have a tendency to use “cooperative” terminology compared to secondary documents that might offer more criticisms of management mechanisms. However, it is interesting to note that the document that had the highest references to the “cooperation” code is a secondary article (i.e., Green et al., 2013). The other two secondary articles, though, were less surprising in that they have far fewer references to “cooperation” compared to the formal documents (below 40 whereas the formal documents each have at least 70 references to cooperation).

6.3.3 Documents analyzed for the Hamoun Wetlands

Unfortunately, no formal documents for the Hamoun Wetlands were available (in the English language). The interviewee for this case suggested that the researcher learn Farsi to gain better access to relevant information. The eleven documents analyzed for the Hamoun Wetlands provided 335 pages of information from the years 2011 to 2020. In attempt for a more balanced perspective, three of the documents are more formal: a nomination for the Hamoun Wetlands as a Biosphere Reserve; a document of support from the European Union to the Hamoun Wetlands; and an information sheet about the Hamoun Wetlands from the United Nations Development Program. Even still, there were more instances of the “cooperation” theme than the “conflict” theme in all but two of the documents, (those two exclusions being Shahbazbegian et al., 2016 and Palmer-Moloney, 2011). The interview was conducted in an attempt to add better balance to the Hamoun Wetlands case.

6.4 Measuring transboundary wetland cooperation

This approach of using SDG Indicator 6.5.2 Methodology to explore cooperation over transboundary wetlands is novel. While not all cases have clear indications of cooperation, there is demonstrated cooperation over the Wadden Sea and considerable cooperation over the Okavango Delta. More research could be done (e.g., with a larger number of case studies or with more in-depth analysis) to better understand cooperation over transboundary wetlands. Furthermore, one limitation of the methodology is that it does not reflect the possibility of informal cooperation. Regardless, there is evidence that countries cooperate over their shared wetlands.

Section 7: Conclusion

Water is a finite resource. As climate change and unsustainable consumption threaten to deplete water resources, it is crucial that states develop plans to better manage their waters. This includes wetlands, given their many benefits to humans and wildlife. Adoption of water laws will become increasingly important to ensure community wellbeing and resilience in uncertain times. Adopting water laws can promote cooperation between neighboring states by ensuring that the states collaborate or consult one another prior to pursuing activities that would affect the neighbor state.

Wetlands provide many critical benefits to communities, such as floodwater storage, wildlife habitat and water purification. Transboundary wetlands provide an opportunity for riparian states to collaborate and share their benefits. In addition to preventing conflict, the adoption of transboundary wetland agreements can result in many more benefits than would be possible with a national policy. By jointly managing resources, states can move beyond protecting what is “theirs” and expand towards shared visions of the future.

Transboundary wetlands have not received as much attention as transboundary rivers. This may be due, in part, to the common misconception that wetlands have little value when left undeveloped. Historically, many wetlands have been lost due to drainage or ditching for agriculture or housing. Wetlands used to be viewed as scary swamps that breed diseases. In truth, wetlands are some of the most diverse and productive ecosystems on Earth. The value of wetlands may still not be largely understood and embraced.

7.1 Limitations of research and recommendations for future research

The case studies, as well as the majority of the wetlands, considered in this research are, to a certain extent, governed by the Ramsar Convention. However, there are many wetlands in the world that do not fall under the Ramsar Convention. While this research identifies only three transboundary wetlands that are not governed by the Ramsar Convention, there are likely many more. Future research could work towards identifying these wetlands with techniques and resources that are beyond the scope of this thesis. For example, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service analyzes aerial imagery to identify the extent of wetlands in the United States (National Standards and Support Team, 2017). This might be a useful method for mapping all of the transboundary wetlands in the world. Another option would be to conduct a spatial analysis of already existing datasets of global wetlands (see: Tootchi et al., 2019; Gumbricht et al., 2017; Rebelo et al., 2009), combined with data on transboundary river basins, to

determine where there is overlap. Such research would give a more complete picture of the extent of the world’s transboundary wetlands.

Furthermore, future research could explore if and how these non-Ramsar wetlands are managed. While the Ramsar Convention provides guidelines on how to sustainably manage wetlands, it is possible that other management mechanisms are also effective. It could be that non-Ramsar wetlands lack formal management due to the absence of an international organization which leads to insufficient capacity to designate the Ramsar Site, but this is pure speculation. The study of how non-Ramsar transboundary wetlands are managed could provide insights on barriers to entry to the Ramsar Convention and associated recognition of wetlands.

Another consideration for future research could be an exploration into the management mechanisms of the Ramsar-designated wetlands that do not fall under the management of an RBO. This research identified that transboundary wetlands are managed by a variety of entities – international governmental organizations that are not RBOs (such as the Common Wadden Sea Secretariat); national strategies (such as the Okavango Delta Management Plan); and international NGOs (such as the partnership between Iran and the United Nations Development Program). Further research into these management mechanisms could provide useful insights into how already-existing institutions might engage in the management of transboundary wetlands. There are many international agreements over shared rivers and lakes: Giordano et al. identified “688 agreements [that were] signed between 1820 and 2007 and constitute 250 independent treaties which apply to 113 basins” (2014). Similar studies of wetland agreements could provide useful insights for the future of transboundary wetland management and governance.

Of the world’s protected wetlands, approximately one-third are found in transboundary river basins (Verschuuren, 2008). Given the connection between wetlands and river basins, this thesis identifies RBOs as an already-existing institution that is well-suited to manage many transboundary wetlands. Future research could expand upon this with a larger number of case studies to better understand how RBOs interact with transboundary wetlands. The 62% of transboundary wetlands identified by this research that fall within the geographical governance of RBOs provide a basis on which to draw from to select cases to study in future research. Since the Nile Basin Initiative was identified in this research as managing transboundary wetlands that are not Ramsar Sites, it could be particularly interesting to study this RBO.

A final recommendation for future research is to explore non-international transboundary wetlands. While this research happened to identify one wetland of this category – the Namatala Wetland in Uganda – there are likely many more wetlands that cross jurisdictional boundaries. The Namatala Wetland is identified as having persistent conflict between the districts that share it: Budaka, Butaleja, and Mbale districts of Eastern Uganda (Mudondo et al., 2019). Identifying other wetlands that fit into this category could be useful in preventing future conflicts (or resolving existing conflicts). This research could be particularly useful in the United States where there are likely many wetlands that cross state lines.

7.2 Final Remarks

While there are likely more than 300 transboundary wetlands in the world, only 65 – about 20% – are officially recognized as Transboundary Ramsar sites. The many instances where individual Ramsar Sites border each other, or where only one country designated their portion of a transboundary wetland as a Ramsar Site, might provide an opportunity to foster cooperation between the riparian states. It seems that the action required would be nominal compared to the benefit of enhanced cooperation and sharing of wetland resource benefits. As states come to recognize the value of wetlands, transboundary wetland agreements could become an important arrangement for fostering cooperation and sharing the burdens and benefits of development.

Wetlands require thoughtful management based on strong laws to prevent their demise. The Ramsar Convention provides essential guidance for states to cooperatively manage shared wetland resources. As evidenced by the 171 countries that are party to the Ramsar Convention, wetlands may be less contested than other water resources and therefore may be an entry point for cooperation. In the absence of institutions to facilitate shared management, states sometimes find themselves in conflict. In an effort to prevent conflict, and with the additional benefit of shared development, it is critical for states to create plans to jointly manage transboundary wetlands.

There is evidence that countries cooperate to manage their shared wetlands, although more research is needed. The application of the SDG Indicator 6.5.2 Methodology to transboundary wetlands in this research demonstrates some evidence of cooperation over transboundary wetlands. Given that the transboundary water cooperation discourse focuses primarily on rivers, this research suggests that wetlands, too, could be further explored as sources of cooperation. It is staggering to learn that globally, approximately 35% of wetlands were lost between 1970 and 2015 (Ramsar Convention, 2018). With the

many benefits of wetlands in mind, countries may find it mutually beneficial to collaborate on the management of their shared wetlands.

References

Ali, S. H. (2019). A casualty of peace? Lessons on de-militarizing conservation in der Cordillera del Condor corridor. In T. Lookingbill & P. Smallwood (Eds.), Collateral values of natural capital (pp. 177– 188). Dordrecht: Springer.

Ashton, P.J. & Neal, M. (2003). An overview of key strategic issues in the Okavango River basin. Chapter 2, In: (A.R. Turton, P.J. Ashton & T.E. Cloete, Eds), Transboundary Rivers, Sovereignty and Development: Hydropolitical Drivers in the Okavango River Basin. Geneva: Green Cross International. Pages 31-63.

Bakker, M.H.N. & Duncan, J.A. (2017). Future bottlenecks in international river basins: where transboundary institutions, population growth and hydrological variability intersect. Water International, 42(4): 400-424, DOI: 10.1080/02508060.2017.1331412

Barua, A., Deka, A., Gulati, V., Vij, S., Liao, X., & Qaddumi, H. M. (2019). Re-interpreting cooperation in transboundary waters: bringing experiences from the Brahmaputra Basin. Water, 11(12). https://doi.org/10.3390/w11122589

Behrouzi-rad, B. (2009). Waterbird populations during Dry and Wet Years in the Hamoun Wetlands Complex, Iran/Afghanistan Border. 4.

Boisson de Chazournes, L. (2009). Freshwater and international law: the interplay between universal, regional, and basin perspectives, UN Water, World Water Assessment Program.

Bowen, G.A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9: 27-40. DOI: 10.3316/QRJ0902027.

Bridgewater, P. (2008). A new context for the Ramsar Convention: wetlands in a changing world. Review of European, Comparative & International Environmental Law, 17(1).

Bryman, A. (2004). Social research methods. 2nd Edition, Oxford University Press, New York, 592.

Carius, A. (2006). Environmental Peacebuilding. Environmental Cooperation as an Instrument of Crisis Prevention and Peacebuilding: Conditions for Success and constraints. Adelphi Report. 3(7).

Carius, A. (2011). Environmental peacebuilding: Conditions for success. ECSP Special Report, Issue 12.

Cascão, A. E. (2009). Changing power relations in the Nile River Basin: Unilateralism vs. cooperation. Water Alternatives, 2(2): 245–268.

Chatterjee, A., Phillips, B., & Stroud, D. A. (2008). Wetland Management Planning. A guide for site managers. WWF, Wetlands International, IUCN & Ramsar Convention.

CWSS (Common Wadden Sea Secretariat). (2010). Wadden Sea Plan 2010. Eleventh Trilateral Governmental Conference on the Protection of the Wadden Sea. Common Wadden Sea Secretariat, Wilhelmshaven, Germany.

Conca, K. (2001). Environmental cooperation and international peace. In: Diehl, P.F. and Gleditsch, N.P. (eds) Environmental Conflict: An anthology. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, pp. 225–247.

Conca, K. and Dabelko, G.D. (2002). Environmental Peacemaking. Washington, DC: Woodrow Wilson Center Press.

Convention on Biological Diversity. (2002). Thematic programmes of work—progress reports on implementation: biological diversity of inland waters. Progress report on the implementation of the river basin initiative. Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity, Sixth Meeting, The Hague, 7-19 April 2002.

Creswell, J. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods Approaches. Los Angeles: SAGE. Chapter 1.

Davidson, N.C. (2014). How much wetland has the world lost? Long-term and recent trends in global wetland area. Marine and Freshwater Research, 65: 936-941.

Dettmann, C. and Enemark, J. (2004). The trilateral Wadden Sea Plan – common management of a shared wetland. 5th European Regional Meeting on the implementation and effectiveness of the Ramsar Convention, 4-8 December 2004, Yerevan, Armenia.

De Stefano, L., Edwards, P., de Silva, L., & Wolf, A. T. (2010). Tracking cooperation and conflict in international basins: Historic and recent trends. Water Policy, 12(6), 871-884. doi:http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.proxy.library.oregonstate.edu/10.2166/wp.2010.137

Dowlatabadi, N., Banihabib, M. E., Roozbahani, A., & Randhir, T. O. (2020). Enhanced GMCR model for resolving conflicts in a transboundary wetland. Science of the Total Environment, 744, 140816. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.140816

Dresse, A., Fischhendler, I., Nielsen, J.O., and Zikos, D. (2018). Environmental peacebuilding: Towards a theoretical framework. Cooperation and Conflict, 1-21.

Economist Intelligence Unit. (2019a). The Blue Peace Index 2019. Public Policy.

Economist Intelligence Unit. (2019b). The Blue Peace Index 2019 Methodology Note. Public Policy.

Environmental Laboratory. (1987). "Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual," Technical Report Y-87-1, U.S. Army Engi- neer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Miss.

Euliss, N. H., Smith, L. M., Wilcox, D. A., & Browne, B. A. (2008). Linking ecosystem processes with wetland management goals: Charting a course for a sustainable future. Wetlands, 28(3), 553–562. https://doi.org/10.1672/07-154.1

Fazel, A., Khorasani, N., Panahi, M., Mehrdadi, M., Mojarad, A., Sharifi, A., Rabieh, S., & Dabiri, F. (2015). Hamoun Biosphere Reserve Nomination.

Finlayson, C. M., and D’Cruz, R. (2005). Inland water systems. In ‘Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Current State and Trends: Findings of the Condition and Trends Working Group’. (Eds R. Hassan, R. Scholes and N. Ash.) pp. 551–583. (Island Press: Washington, D.C.)

Finlayson C.M. (2016) Wetland Management Planning: Okavango Delta (Botswana). In: Finlayson C. et al. (eds) The Wetland Book. Springer, Dordrecht. DOI: 10.1007/978-94-007-6172-8_279-1

Finlayson, M., Milton, G. & Prentice, C. (2018). Wetland Types and Distribution. DOI: 10.1007/978-94- 007-4001-3_186.

FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization). (2020). Afghan-Iranian Helmand River Water Treaty. FAOLEX Database. Accessed at: http://www.fao.org/faolex/results/details/en/c/LEX-FAOC174405/

Furlong, K. (2006). Hidden theories, troubled waters: International relations, the ‘territorial trap’, and the Southern African Development Community’s transboundary waters. Political Geography, 25(4): 438- 458. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polgeo.2005.12.008

Gallardo, M. V. I., Helsley, J., Pinel, S. L., Ammon, J., Wendland, K., & López, F. (2013). Collaborative community-based governance in a transboundary wetland system in the Ecuadorian Andes: Opportunities and challenges at a proposed Ramsar site. Mountain Research and Development, 33(3): 269–279.

Giordano, M., Drieschova, A., Duncan, J. A., Sayama, Y., De Stefno, L., & Wolf, A. T. (2014). A review of the evolution and state of transboundary freshwater treaties. International Environmental Agreements, 14: 245–264. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10784-013-9211-8

Global Water Partnership. (2011). What is IWRM? Accessed August 28, 2020. https://www.gwp.org/en/GWP-CEE/about/why/what-is-iwrm/

Goertz, G., Diehl, P.F., and Balas, A. (2016). The Puzzle of Peace: The Evolution of Peace in the International System. Oxford University Press.

Goes, B.J.M, Howarth, S.E., Wardlaw, R.B., Hancock, I.R., & Parajuli, U.N. (2016). Integrated water resources management in an insecure river basin: a case study of Helmand River Basin, Afghanistan. International Journal of Water Resources Development, 32(1): 3-25. DOI: 10.1080/07900627.2015.1012661

Green, O.O., Cosens, B.A., and Garmestani, A.S. (2013). Resilience in transboundary water governance: the Okavango River Basin. Ecology and Society, 18(2): 23.

Griffin, P.J. (2012). The Ramsar Convention: A new window for environmental diplomacy? Institute for Environmental Diplomacy and Security Research Series. A1-2012-1. The University of Vermont.

Griffin, P.J. and Ali, S. (2012). Wetland diplomacy: transboundary conservation and Ramsar. Our World. United Nations University. Peace and Security: Biodiversity, Ecosystems, Governance, Peacebuilding.

Gumbricht, T., Roman-Cuesta, R.M., Verchot, L.V., Herold, M., Whittmann, F., Householder, E., Herold, N., and Murdiyarso, D. (2017). An expert system model for mapping tropical wetlands and peatlands

reveals South America as the largest contributor. Global Change Biology, 23(9): 3581-3599. DOI: 10.1111/gcb.13689

Harris, C., Bhandari, B.B., Hua, O., and Sharma, E. (2009). Himalayan Wetlands Initiative – conservation and wise use of natural water storage in the HKH region. Sustainable Mountain Development, 56.

Hayes, A.W. (2005). The precautionary principle. Archives of Industrial Hygiene and Toxicity. 56(2):161-6.

Herath, G. (2004). Incorporating community objectives in improved wetland management: The use of the analytic hierarchy process. Journal of Environmental Management, 70(3), 263–273. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2003.12.011

Hsieh, H. F. and Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9):1277-88. doi: 10.1177/1049732305276687.

Ide, T. (2020). The dark side of environmental peacebuilding. World Development, 127.

Ide, T. & Detges, A. (2018). International water cooperation and environmental peacemaking. Global Environmental Politics, 18(4): 63-84.

International Law Association (1967). Helsinki rules on the uses of the waters of international rivers. London. 7-55.

Iza, A. (2004). Developments under the Ramsar Convention: allocation of water for river and wetland ecosystems. RECIEL. 13(1).

Jansen, R., & Madzwamuse, M. (2003). The Okavango Delta Management Plan project: The need for environmental partnerships. Transboundary Rivers, Sovereignty and Development: Hydropolitical drivers in the Okavango River Basin, Pretoria: African Water Issue Research Unit, Green Cross International, 141- 166.

Janssen, R., Goosen, H., Verhoeven, M. L., Verhoeven, J. T. A., Omtzigt, A. Q. A., & Maltby, E. (2005). Decision support for integrated wetland management. Environmental Modelling & Software, 20(2), 215– 229. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2003.12.020

Julien, F. (2012). Hydropolitics is what societies make of it (or why we need a constructivist approach to the geopolitics of water). International Journal of Sustainable Society, 4(1/2), 45. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJSSOC.2012.044665

Keddy, P.A. (2010). Wetland Ecology: Principles and Conservation. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.

Kgathi, D. L., D. Kniveton, S. Ringrose, A. R. Turton, C. H. M. Vanderpost, J. Lundqvist, and M. Seely. 2006. The Okavango; a river supporting its people, environment and economic development. Journal of Hydrology, 331:3–17. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2006.04.048

Labuschagne, A. (2003). Qualitative research - airy fairy or fundamental? The Qualitative Report, 8(1): 100-103. Retrieved from https://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol8/iss1/7

Landman, T. and Carvalho, E. (2017). Issues and Methods in Comparative Politics. Routledge (4).

Lautze, J. and Giordano, M. (2005). Transboundary water law in Africa: Development, nature, and geography. Natural Resources Journal, 45(1053).

Lee, J. (2015). The governance of wetland ecosystems and the promotion of transboundary water cooperation – opportunities presented by the Ramsar Convention. Water International, 40(1): 33-47.

Lei, G. (2005). Review of the Himalayan wetlands conservation initiative. Convention on wetlands, Asia regional meeting for Ramsar COP9 May.

Leibowitz, S. G., Wigington, P. J., Schofield, K. A., Alexander, L. C., Vanderhoof, M. K., & Golden, H. E. (2018). Connectivity of streams and wetlands to downstream waters: an integrated systems framework. Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 54(2): 298–322. https://doi.org/10.1111/1752- 1688.12631

Maleki, S., S. S. Koupaei, A. Soffianian, S. Saatchi, S. Pourmanafi, and V. Rahdari. (2019). Human and Climate Effects on the Hamoun Wetlands. Wea. Climate Soc., 11, 609–622, https://doi.org/10.1175/WCAS-D-18-0070.1.

Maltby, E. (1991). Wetland management goals: Wise use and conservation. Landscape and Urban Planning, 20(1), 9–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/0169-2046(91)90085-Z

McCartney M. and Rebelo, L.M. (2018) Nile River Basin. In: Finlayson C., Milton G., Prentice R., Davidson N. (eds) The Wetland Book. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4001-3_89

McCracken, M. and Wolf, A.T. (2019). Updating the Register of International River Basins of the world. International Journal of Water Resources Development, 35:5, 732-782, DOI: 10.1080/07900627.2019.1572497

McCracken, M. (2018). SDG Indicator 6.5.2 Methodology. Global Water Partnership.

McIntyre, O. (2016a). Environmental protection of international watercourses under international law. London: Routledge.

McIntyre, O. (2016b). 'The emergence of the ‘common management’ approach to international watercourse governance and its significance for environmental protection', in Scarborough V. (ed.), Water History and Humanity. Paris: UNESCO. In press.

MedWet (Mediterranean Wetlands Initiative). (2016). Wetlands for sustainable development in the Mediterranean region: A framework for action 2016–2030. Paris, France, 7–11 February 2016.

MedWet (2019). GEMWET – Conservation and sustainable development of coastal wetlands with high ecological value: the Ghar el Melh case, Tunisia. Retrieved from https://medwet.org/publications/gemwet-ghar-el-melh-brochure-2018/.

Mfundisi, K.B. (2008). Overview of an integrated management plan for the Okavango Delta Ramsar Site, Botswana. Wetlands, 28, 538. DOI: 10.1672/07-55.1.

Mianabadi, A., Davary, K., Mianabadi, H., & Karimi, P. (2020). International environmental conflict management in transboundary river basins. Water Resources Management, 34: 3445–3464. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-020-02576-7.

Milanes-Murcia, M., Sandoval-Solis, S., and Stevens, M. (2013). The environmental protection of wetlands under international law. Journal Wetland Science and Practice, 30(4): 9-26.

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (Program) (Ed.). (2005). Ecosystems and human well-being: Wetlands and water synthesis: a report of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. World Resources Institute.

Mirumachi, N., & Allan, J.A. (2007). Revisiting Transboundary Water Governance: Power, Conflict, Cooperation and the Political Economy.

Mitsch, W.J. and Gosselink, J.G. (2007). Wetlands. John Wily and Sons, Inc. Hoboken, New Jersey.

Mosepele, K., Hambira, W.L., Mogomotsi, G.E.J., Mogomotsi, P.K., Moses, O., Dhliwayo, M., Makati, A., and Setomba, B. (2018). Water, ecosystem dynamics and human livelihoods in the Okavango River Basin (ORB): competing needs of balanced use? A review. Water and Sustainability, provisional chapter.

Mudondo, C., Batega, D. W., & Kabumbuli, R. (2018). “The wetland is our cooking pot”: Implications of latent symbolism of Language use on persistent conflicts in transboundary wetlands in Uganda. Journal of Studies in Social Sciences and Humanities, 4(4): 80-87.

Najafi, A. and Vatanfada, J. (2011). Environmental challenges in trans-boundary waters, case study: Hamoon Hirmand Wetland (Iran and Afghanistan). International Journal of Water Resources and Arid Environments, 1(1): 16-24.

National Standards and Support Team. (2017). Technical procedures for conducting status and trends of the Nation’s wetlands (version 2). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Budget and Technical Support, Washington, D.C. 76 p.

Nile Basin Initiative. (2013). Wetland Management Strategy.

Nile Basin Initiative. (2018). Nile River Basin transboundary wetlands conservation. https://panorama.solutions/en/solution/nile-river-basin-transboundary-wetlands-conservation

ODMP (Okavango Delta Management Plan). (2008). Okavango Delta Management Plan Project. Department of Environmental Affairs, Gaborone, Botswana.

Odom, O. and Wolfe, A. (2011). Institutional resilience and climate variability in international water treaties: the Jordan River Basin as ‘proof of concept.’ Hydrological Sciences Journal, 456(4).

Off Your Map (2018). Water, Wetlands and Nature-based Solutions in a Nexus Context in the Mediterranean. Policy Brief.

OKACOM (The Permanent Okavango River Basin Water Commission). (2011). Okavango River Basin Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis. Maun, Botswana: OKACOM.

OKACOM. (2020). https://www.okacom.org/

Ostrom, E. (2011), Background on the Institutional Analysis and Development framework. Policy Studies Journal, 39: 7-27. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0072.2010.00394.x

Ostrovskaya, E., Douven, W., Mukuyu, P., Schwartz, K., Pataki, B., Zsuffa, I., Johnston, R., Kaggwa, R., Namaalwa, S., & Morardet, S. (2012). Analysis of institutional capacity in wetland management and IWRM in the Gemenc, Ga-Mampa and Nabajjuzi & Namatala Wetlands. 82. https://doi.org/hal- 02597963

Palmer-Moloney, L. (2011). Water's role in measuring security and stability in Helmand Province, Afghanistan. Water International, 36(2), 207-221. DOI: 10.1080/02508060.2011.560748

Papayannis, T. (2004). Shared catchments and wetlands – increasing transboundary cooperation. 5th European Regional Meeting on the implementation and effectiveness of the Ramsar Convention. Armenia.

PCIJ. (1929). Territorial Jurisdiction of International Commission of River Oder (U.K. v. Pol.). PCIJ (ser. A) No. 23 (Sept. 10).

Petersen‐Perlman, J.D. and Wolf, A.T. (2015). Getting to the first handshake: enhancing security by initiating cooperation in transboundary river basins. Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 51(6): 1688– 1707. DOI: 10.1111/1752‐1688.12348

Petersen-Perlman, J. D., Veilleux, J. C., & Wolf, A. T. (2017). International water conflict and cooperation: Challenges and opportunities. Water International, 42(2), 105–120. https://doi.org/10.1080/02508060.2017.1276041

Pinheiro, I., Gabaake, G., & Heyns, P. (2003). Cooperation in the Okavango river basin: The OKACOM perspective. 8.

Rahaman, M.M. (2009). Principles of international water law: creating effective transboundary water resources management. International Journal of Sustainable Society. 1(3).

Ramberg L. (2018). The Okavango Delta Legal Framework. In: Finlayson C. et al. (eds) The Wetland Book. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-9659-3_135

Ramsar Convention (Ramsar Convention on Wetlands). (2005). Resolution IX.1 Annex A: A conceptual framework for the wise use of wetlands and the maintenance of their ecological character. 9th Meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Wetlands (Ramsar, Iran, 1971), Kampala, Uganda, 8-15 November 2005.

Ramsar Convention. (2007). The Montreux Record and the Ramsar Advisory Missions. Ramsar Information Paper Number 6.

Ramsar Convention. (2013). The Ramsar Convention Manual: a guide to the Convention on Wetlands (Ramsar, Iran, 1971), 6th ed. Ramsar Convention Secretariat, Gland, Switzerland.

Ramsar Convention. (2015a). Review of the Himalayan Wetlands Conservation Initiative. Asia Regional Meeting in preparation for Ramsar COP9 Beijing, China, 13-16 May 2005.

Ramsar Convention. (2015b). Establishment of the largest Transboundary Ramsar Site – Wadden Sea.

Ramsar Convention. (2016). Operational Guidelines for Ramsar Regional Initiatives to support the implementation of the Convention. Gland, Switzerland.

Ramsar Convention. (2018). Global Wetland Outlook: State of the World’s Wetlands and their Services to People. Gland, Switzerland: Ramsar Convention Secretariat.

Ramsar Convention. (2020). Ramsar Sites Information Service. https://rsis.ramsar.org/.

Rebelo, L.M., Finlayson, C.M., Nagabhatla, N. (2009). Remote sensing and GIS for wetland inventory, mapping and change analysis. Journal of Environmental Management, 90(7):2144-53. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2007.06.027. Epub 2008 Mar 25. PMID: 18367311.

Revenga, C., Brunner, J., Henninger, N., Kassem, K., & Payne, R. (2000). Pilot analysis of global ecosystems, 78.

Ryan, G. W., & Bernard, H. R. (2003). Techniques to Identify Themes. Field Methods, 15(1), 85–109. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X02239569

Sadoff, C. W. and Grey, D. (2002). Beyond the river: benefits of cooperation on international rivers. Water Policy, 4: 389-403.

Salman, S.M.A. (2007). The Helsinki Rules, the UN Watercourses Convention and the Berlin Rules: Perspectives on international water law. International Journal of Water Resources. 23(4).

Sandwith, T., Shine, C., Hamilton, L., and Sheppard, D. (2001). Transboundary Protected Areas for Peace and Co-operation. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. xi + 111pp.

Schmeier, S., Gerlak, A. K., & Blumstein, S. (2015). Clearing the muddy waters of shared watercourses governance: conceptualizing international River Basin Organizations. International Environmental Agreements, 16: 597-619. DOI 10.1007/s10784-015-9287-4.

Schneider, C., Flörke, M., De Stefano, L., & Petersen-Perlman, J. D. (2017). Hydrological threats to riparian wetlands of international importance – a global quantitative and qualitative analysis. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 21(6): 2799–2815. https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-21-2799-2017

SDC (Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation). (2005). Conflict Analysis Tools Tip Sheet.

Shahbazbegian, M. R., Turton, A., & Seyed Masoud, M. S. (2016). Hydropolitical self-organization theory; system dynamics to analyse hydropolitics of Helmand transboundary river. Water Policy, 18(5): 1088- 1119. doi:http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.proxy.library.oregonstate.edu/10.2166/wp.2016.204

Sharifikia, M. (2013). Environmental challenges and drought hazard assessment of hamoun desert lake in sistan region, iran, based on the time series of satellite imagery. Natural Hazards, 65(1), 201-217. doi:http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.proxy.library.oregonstate.edu/10.1007/s11069-012-0353-8

Sneddon, C. and Fox, C. (2006). Rethinking transboundary waters: A critical hydropolitics of the Mekong Basin. Political Geography, 25: 181-202.

Subramanian, A., Brown, B., and Wolf, A. T. (2014). Understanding and overcoming risks to cooperation along transboundary rivers. Water Policy, 16(5): 824.

Swyngedouw, E. (2009). The political economy and political ecology of the hydro-social cycle. Journal of Contemporary Water Research & Education, 142(1), 56-60.

Tetinwe, Nah Anthony. (2019). Community Management Groups as an Effective Legal Paradigm for Local Level Participation in the Management, Conservation and Wise Use of Wetlands: Case Study of Cameroon. National Journal of Environmental Law, 1(2): 1-19.

Thomas, V. and Varzi, M.M. (2015). A legal licence for an ecological disaster: the inadequacies of the 1973 Helmand/Hirmand water treaty for sustainable transboundary water resources development. International Journal of Water Resources Development, 31(4): 499-518. DOI: 10.1080/07900627.2014.1003346.

Tootchi, A., Jost, A., and Ducharne, A. (2019). Multi-source global wetland maps combining surface water imagery and groundwater constraints. Earth System Science Data, 11: 189-220.

TWSC (Transboundary Cooperation on the Protection of the Wadden Sea). (2010). 2010 Governance Arrangements, Trilateral Wadden Sea Cooperation.

UNECE (United Nations Economic Commission for Europe). (1992). Helsinki Convention on the Protection and Use of Transboundary Watercourses and International Lakes. Helsinki, 17 Mar. 1992, 31 ILM 1312.

UNECE. (2018). Water Convention Program of Work 2019-2021: Responding to global water challenges in transboundary basins. Geneva, Switzerland.

UNECE. (2019). Guide to reporting under the Water Convention and as a contribution to SDG indicator 6.5.2.

UNESCO (1994). Convention on Wetlands of International Importance especially as Waterfowl Habitat. (Amendments 13 July 1994).

United Nations (2015). Transforming our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.

UN Water (2008). Transboundary Waters Sharing Benefits, Sharing Responsibilities. (Thematic Paper). UN Water. www.unwater.org/app/uploads/2017/05/UNW_TRANSBOUNDARY.pdf

UNWC (1997). United Nations Convention on the Law of Non-Navigational Uses of International Watercourses (adopted 21 May 1997, entered into force 17 August 2014). International Legal Materials.

USEPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). (2018). What is a Wetland? (2018, June 12). Retrieved September 05, 2020, from https://www.epa.gov/wetlands/what-wetland

Verschuuren, J. (2008). The case of transboundary wetlands under the Ramsar Convention: Keep the lawyers out. Colorado Journal of International Environmental Law and Policy, 19(1), 49-128.

Villanueva, A.O.N., da Motta Marques, D., and Tucci, C.E.M. (2000). The Taim wetland conflict: A compromise between environment conservation and irrigation. Water International, 25(4): 610-616. DOI: 10.1080/02508060008686876

Vinogradov, S. and Wouters, P. (2013). Sino-Russian transboundary waters: a legal perspective on cooperation. Institute for Security and Development Policy, Stockholm Paper, December 2013.

Wetlands International. (2017). Water Shocks: Wetlands and Human Migration in the Sahel. Wetlands International, The Netherlands.

Wetlands International. (2019). Wetlands International emphasises conflict-sensitive and human- security approaches to infrastructure as new Malian government takes office.

Wiegleb, V. & Bruns, A. (2018). What is driving the water-energy-food nexus? Discourses, knowledge and politics of an emerging resource governance concept. Frontiers in Environmental Science, 6, 128. doi: 10.3389/fenvs.2018.00128

Wolf, A.T. (1998). Conflict and cooperation along international waterways. Water Policy, 1(2), 251-265. Wolf, A. T., Kramer, A., Carius, A., & Dabelko, G. D. (2005). Managing water conflict and cooperation. State of the World 2005: redefining global security, 80-95.

Wolf, A. T., Stahl, K., and Macomber, M. F. (2003). Conflict and cooperation within international river basins: The importance of institutional capacity. Water Resources Update, 125. Universities Council on Water Resources.

Wolski, P. and Murray-Hudson, M. (2006). Reconstruction 1989-2005 Inundation History in the Okavango Delta from Archival Landsat TM Imagery. Conference: GlobWetland Symposium, ESA-ESRIN, Frascati, Italy.

Xu, T., Weng, B., Yan, D., Wang, K., Li, X., Bi, W., Li, M., Cheng, X., and Liu, Y. (2019). Wetlands of international importance: status, threats, and future protection. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(1818).

Yoffe, S. B., Wolf, A. T., and Giordano, M. (2003). Conflict and cooperation over international freshwater resources: indicators of basins at risk. Journal of the American Water Resources Association. 39(5): 1109- 1126.

Zawahri, N. (2008). International rivers and national security: The Euphrates, Ganges-Brahmaputra, Indus, Tigris, and Yarmouk Rivers. Natural Resources Forum, 32(4), 280–289. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1477-8947.2008.00204.x

Appendix 1: Transboundary Wetland Database

This database was created using data primarily from the Ramsar Sites Information Service and the River Basin Organization (RBO) Database housed by Oregon State University.

Codes:

Ramsar: 2 = Transboundary Ramsar Site; 1 = Individual Ramsar Site; 0 = no Ramsar designation

RBO: 2 = RBO present with all riparian countries involved; 1 = RBO present but not all riparian countries involved; 0 = RBO not present.

Ramsar Site Region Ramsar RBO Countries Riparian Benin, Burkina Faso, Complexe transfrontalier W-Arly-Pendjari Africa 2 2 Niger Okavango Delta System Africa 1 2 Botswana Angola, Namibia Burkina Faso, Vallee du Sourou Africa 2 2 Mali Parc National de la Rusizi Africa 1 1 Burundi DRC Partie Camerounaise du Fleuve Ntem Africa 1 0 Cameroon Equitorial Guinea Partie camerounaise du fleuve Sangha Africa 1 2 Cameroon Central African Republic, DRC Partie Camerounaise du Lac Tchad Africa 1 2 Cameroon Cameroon, Niger, Nigeria Waza Logone Floodplain Africa 1 2 Cameroon Nigeria, Chad Central African Les Rivières de Mbaéré-Bodingué Africa 1 2 Republic Congo Partie Tchadienne du lac Tchad Africa 1 2 Chad Cameroon, Niger, Nigeria Plaines d'inondation des Bahr Aouk et Salamat Africa 1 2 Chad Central African Republic Plaines d'inondation du Logone et les dépressions Toupouri Africa 1 2 Chad Cameroon Réserve de faune de Binder-Léré Africa 1 2 Chad Cameroon Conkouati-Douli Africa 1 0 Congo Gabon Leketi-Mbama Africa 1 2 Congo Gabon

Libenga Africa 1 2 Congo DRC Complexe Transfrontalier Lac Tele - Grands Affluents - Lac Tumba Africa 2 2 Congo, DRC Parc national des Mangroves Africa 1 2 DRC Angola, Congo Parc national des Virunga Africa 1 2 DRC Uganda, Rwanda Semliki Delta Africa 0 2 DRC, Uganda Equatorial Reserva Natural del Estuario del Muni Africa 1 0 Guinea Gabon Equatorial Río Ntem o Campo Africa 1 0 Guinea Cameroon, Gabon Site Ramsar des Monts Birougou Africa 1 0 Gabon Congo Baobolon Wetland Reserve Africa 1 2 Gambia Senegal Gambia, Niumi-Saloum Africa 2 0 Senegal Gambie-Koulountou Africa 1 2 Guinea Senegal Gambie-Oundou-Liti Africa 1 2 Guinea Senegal Niger Source Africa 1 2 Guinea Sierra Leone Niger-Tinkisso Africa 1 2 Guinea Mali Sankarani-Fié Africa 1 2 Guinea Mali, Cote d'Ivoire Parc Naturel des Mangroves du Fleuve Guinea- Cacheu (PNTC) Africa 1 0 Bissau Gambia Kenya, Sio-Siteko Africa 0 2 Uganda Lets'eng-la-Letsie Africa 1 2 Lesotho South Africa Gbedin Wetlands Africa 1 0 Liberia Guinea Elephant Marsh Africa 1 2 Malawi Mozambique Lake Chilwa Africa 1 2 Malawi Mozambique Parc National du Diawling Africa 1 2 Mauritania Senegal Bwabwata-Okavango Ramsar Site Africa 1 2 Namibia Angola, Botswana Orange River Mouth Africa 1 2 Namibia South Africa Complexe Kokorou-Namga Africa 1 2 Niger Burkina Faso, Mali Lac Tchad Africa 1 2 Niger Chad, Nigeria, Cameroon

Zone humide de moyen Niger II Africa 1 2 Niger Benin Lake Chad Wetlands in Nigeria Africa 1 2 Nigeria Niger, Chad, Cameroon Parc National des Oiseaux du Djoudj Africa 1 2 Senegal Mauritania Kosi Bay Africa 1 0 South Africa Mozambique Makuleke Wetlands Africa 1 2 South Africa Zimbabwe, Mozambique Natal Drakensberg Park Africa 1 0 South Africa Lesotho Ndumo Game Reserve Africa 1 2 South Africa Mozambique Orange River Mouth Africa 1 2 South Africa Namibia Turtle Beaches/Coral Reefs of Tongaland Africa 1 0 South Africa Mozambique Dinder National Park Africa 1 2 Sudan Ethiopia Tanzania, Sango Bay – Minziro Wetland landscape Africa 0 2 Uganda Reserve de faune de Togodo Africa 1 2 Togo Benin Lake Mburo-Nakivali Wetland System Africa 1 2 Uganda Tanzania Rwenzori Mountains Ramsar Site Africa 1 2 Uganda DRC Sango Bay-Musambwa Island-Kagera Wetland System (SAMUKA) Africa 1 2 Uganda Tanzania United Republic of Lake Natron Basin Africa 1 2 Tanzania Kenya Tanganyika Africa 1 1 Zambia Burundi, DRC, Tanzania Hawar Islands Asia 1 0 Bahrain Saudi Arabia Tubli Bay Asia 1 0 Bahrain Saudi Arabia Sundarbans Reserved Forest Asia 1 2 Bangladesh India Tanguar Haor Asia 1 2 Bangladesh India Himalayan High Altitude Wetlands Asia 1 0 Bhutan, China, India, Kyrgyzstan, Nepal, Pakistan Koh Kapik and Associated Islets Asia 1 0 Cambodia Thailand Dalai Lake National Nature Reserve, Inner Mongolia Asia 1 2 China Mongolia, Russian Federation Honghe National Nature Reserve Asia 1 2 China Russian Federation San Jiang National Nature Reserve Asia 1 2 China Russian Federation Xingkai Lake National Nature Reserve Asia 1 2 China Russian Federation

Sundarban Wetland Asia 1 0 India Bangladesh Wasur National Park Asia 1 0 Indonesia Papua New Guinea Islamic Republic of Alagol, Ulmagol and Ajigol Lakes Asia 1 0 Iran Turkmenistan Islamic Republic of Gomishan Lagoon Asia 1 0 Iran Turkmenistan Islamic Republic of Govater Bay and Hur-e-Bahu Asia 1 0 Iran Pakistan Islamic Republic of Hamun-e-Puzak, south end Asia 1 2 Iran Afghanistan Islamic Republic of Hamun-e-Saberi & Hamun-e-Helmand Asia 1 2 Iran Afghanistan Islamic Shadegan Marshes & mudflats of Khor-al Republic of Amaya & Khor Musa Asia 1 0 Iran Iraq Chatyr Kul Asia 1 0 Kyrgyzstan China Lake Buir and its surrounding wetlands Asia 1 2 Mongolia China Lake Uvs and its surrounding wetlands Asia 1 0 Mongolia Russian Federation Mongol Daguur Asia 1 2 Mongolia Russian Federation Koshi Tappu Asia 1 0 Nepal India Indus Delta Asia 1 2 Pakistan India Jiwani Coastal Wetland Asia 1 0 Pakistan Islamic Republic of Iran Runn of Kutch Asia 1 0 Pakistan India Bung Khong Long Non-Hunting Area Asia 1 2 Thailand Laos Nong Bong Kai Non-Hunting Area Asia 1 2 Thailand Laos, Myanmar Princess Sirindhorn Wildlife Sanctuary Asia 1 0 Thailand Malasia Lake Dengizkul Asia 1 2 Uzbekistan Turkmenistan

Albanian Prespa Lakes Europe 1 1 Albania Greece, Macedonia Butrint Europe 1 0 Albania Greece Lake Shkodra and River Buna Europe 1 0 Albania Montenegro Lower Inn Reservoirs Europe 1 2 Austria Germany Rheindelta Europe 1 1 Austria Germany, Switzerland Upper Drava River Europe 1 1 Austria Germany, Italy, Slovenia Waldviertel ponds, peat bogs & floodplains Europe 1 1 Austria Czech Republic Austria, Czech Trilateral Ramsar Site Floodplains of the Republic, Morava-Dyje-Danube Confluence Europe 2 2 Slovakia Austria, Austrian-Bavarian Wildalm Europe 2 2 Germany Transboundary Ramsar Site Neusiedler Austria, See-Seewinkel - Ferto-Hansag Europe 2 2 Hungary Dnieper River Floodplain Europe 1 2 Belarus Ukraine Iput River Floodplain Europe 1 2 Belarus Russian Federation Osveiski Europe 1 1 Belarus Latvia, Russian Federation Polesye Valley of River Bug Europe 1 1 Belarus Poland, Ukraine Belarus, Adutiskis-Vileity Europe 2 1 Lithuania Belarus, Kotra-Cepkeliai Europe 2 0 Lithuania Belarus, Olmany - Perebrody mires Europe 2 2 Ukraine Belarus, Stokhid-Prypiat-Prostyr Europe 2 2 Ukraine Kalmthoutse Heide Europe 1 2 Belgium The Netherlands Les Hautes Fagnes Europe 1 0 Belgium Germany Schorren van de Beneden Schelde Europe 1 2 Belgium The Netherlands Zwin Europe 1 0 Belgium The Netherlands

Belgium, Vallee de la Haute-Sure Europe 2 2 Luxembourg Bosnia and Hutovo Blato Europe 1 0 Herzogovina Croatia Bulgaria, Bistret - Ibisha Island Europe 2 2 Romania Bulgaria, Lake Calarasi - Srebarna Europe 2 2 Romania Bulgaria, Suhaia - Belene Islands Complex Europe 2 2 Romania Lonjsko Polje Nature Park Europe 1 2 Croatia Bosnia and Herzegovina Nature Park Kopacki rit Europe 1 2 Croatia Serbia Neretva River Delta Europe 1 0 Croatia Bosnia and Herzegovina Czech Jizera Headwaters Europe 1 1 Republic Poland Czech Šumavská rašeliniště Europe 1 2 Republic Germany Czech Třeboňská rašeliniště Europe 1 2 Republic Austria Czech Republic, Krkonose/Karkonosze subalpine peatbogs Europe 2 2 Poland Denmark, Germany, The Wadden Sea Europe 2 0 Netherlands Emajoe Suursoo Mire and Piirissaar Island Europe 1 2 Estonia Russian Federation Estonia, North Livonian Transboundary Ramsar Site Europe 2 0 Latvia Kainuunkylä Islands Europe 1 1 Finland Sweden Lätäseno-Hietajoki Mires Europe 1 2 Finland Norway Siikalahti Bay Area Europe 1 2 Finland Russian Federation Rives du Lac Léman Europe 1 2 France Switzerland

Vallées de la Scarpe et de l'Escaut Europe 1 2 France Belgium Zones humides et marines de Saint-Martin Europe 1 0 France The Netherlands Rhin superieur / Oberrhein -- Oberrnein / France, Rhin superieur Europe 2 2 Germany Bodensee: Wollmatinger Ried - Giehrenmoos & Mindelsee Europe 1 2 Germany Austria, Switzerland Unterer Inn, Haiming-Neuhaus Europe 1 2 Germany Austria Unterer Niederrhein Europe 1 2 Germany The Netherlands Unteres Odertal, Schwedt Europe 1 2 Germany Poland Artificial Lake Kerkini Europe 1 1 Greece Bulgaria, Macedonia Evros Delta Europe 1 0 Greece Turkey Lake Mikri Prespa Europe 1 1 Greece Albania, Macedonia Béda-Karapancsa Europe 1 2 Hungary Croatia, Serbia Biharugra Fishponds Europe 1 2 Hungary Romania Pusztaszer Europe 1 2 Hungary Austria, Romania Rába valley Europe 1 2 Hungary Austria Szaporca Europe 1 2 Hungary Croatia Hungary, Domica-Baradla Cave System Europe 2 2 Slovakia Hungary, Ipoly Valley - Poiplie Europe 2 2 Slovakia Hungary, Upper Tisza Valley Europe 2 2 Slovakia Hula Nature Reserve Europe 1 1 Israel Syria, Lebanon Pape Wetland Complex Europe 1 0 Latvia Lithuania Haff Réimech Europe 1 2 Luxembourg Germany Skadarsko Jezero Europe 1 0 Montenegro Albania Bargerveen Europe 1 0 Netherlands Germany Mullet Pond Europe 1 0 Netherlands France Westerschelde & Saeftinghe Europe 1 0 Netherlands Belgium North Lake Prespa Europe 1 1 Macedonia Albania, Greece

Kvisleflået Europe 1 0 Norway Sweden Pasvik Europe 1 1 Norway Russian Federation Biebrzanski National Park Europe 1 1 Poland Belarus Lake of Seven Islands Nature Reserve Europe 1 0 Poland Russian Federation Peatland of the Izera River Valley Europe 1 1 Poland Czech Republic Poleski National Park Europe 1 2 Poland Ukraine Warta River Mouth National Park Europe 1 2 Poland Germany Sapais de Castro Marim Europe 1 2 Portugal Spain Republic of Lower Dniester Europe 1 2 Moldova Ukraine Republic of Lower Prut Lakes Europe 1 2 Moldova Romania Republic of Unguri-Holosnita Europe 1 2 Moldova Ukraine Danube Delta Europe 1 2 Romania Moldova, Ukraine Iron Gates Natural Park Europe 1 2 Romania Serbia Mures Floodplain Europe 1 2 Romania Hungary Olt - Danube Confluence Europe 1 2 Romania Bulgaria Russian Khingano-Arkharinskaya Lowland Europe 1 2 Federation China Russian Kurgalsky Peninsula Europe 1 0 Federation Estonia Russian Lake Khanka Europe 1 2 Federation China Russian Pskovsko-Chudskaya Lowland Europe 1 2 Federation Estonia Russian Tobol-Ishim Forest-steppe Europe 1 2 Federation Kazakhstan Russian Torey Lakes Europe 1 2 Federation Mongolia Russian Volga Delta Europe 1 2 Federation Kazakhstan

Russian Zeya-Bureya Plains Europe 1 2 Federation China Dunajské luhy Europe 1 2 Slovakia Austria, Hungary Latorica Europe 1 2 Slovakia Ukraine Wetlands of Orava Basin Europe 1 1 Slovakia Poland Secoveljske soline Europe 1 0 Slovenia Croatia Skocjanske Jame Europe 1 0 Slovenia Italy Storkölen Europe 1 0 Sweden Norway Bolle di Magadino Europe 1 2 Switzerland Italy Klingnauer Stausee Europe 1 2 Switzerland Germany Le Rhône genevois - Vallons de l'Allondon et de la Laire Europe 1 2 Switzerland France Les Grangettes Europe 1 2 Switzerland France Dniester-Turunchuk Crossrivers Area Europe 1 2 Ukraine Moldova Kartal Lake Europe 1 2 Ukraine Moldova, Romania Kryva Bay and Kryva Spit Europe 1 0 Ukraine Russian Federation Kugurlui Lake Europe 1 2 Ukraine Moldova, Romania Kyliiske Mouth Europe 1 2 Ukraine Romania Liadova-Murafa Europe 1 2 Ukraine Moldova Nadsiannia Raised Bog Europe 1 2 Ukraine Poland Northern Part of the Dniester Liman Europe 1 2 Ukraine Moldova Shatsk Lakes Europe 1 1 Ukraine Belarus, Poland Carlingford Lough Europe 1 0 UKGBNI Ireland Cuilcagh Mountain Europe 1 0 UKGBNI Ireland Lough Foyle Europe 1 0 UKGBNI Ireland Pettigoe Plateau Europe 1 0 UKGBNI Ireland Slieve Beagh Europe 1 0 UKGBNI Ireland Upper Lough Erne Europe 1 0 UKGBNI Ireland Humedales Chaco Neotropics 1 2 Argentina Paraguay Palmar Yatay Neotropics 1 2 Argentina Uruguay

Reserva Costa Atlantica de Tierra del Fuego Neotropics 1 0 Argentina Chile Rio Pilcomayo Neotropics 1 2 Argentina Paraguay Sarstoon Temash National Park Neotropics 1 0 Belize Guatemala Cabo Orange National Park Neotropics 1 0 Brazil French Guiana Parque Nacional del Pantanal Matogrosense Neotropics 1 2 Brazil Plurinational State of Bolivia Parque Andino Juncal Neotropics 1 0 Chile Argentina Salar de Surire Neotropics 1 0 Chile Plurinational State of Bolivia Salar de Tara Neotropics 1 2 Chile Argentina, Plurinational State of Bolivia Salar del Huasco Neotropics 1 0 Chile Plurinational State of Bolivia Caño Negro Neotropics 1 0 Costa Rica Nicaragua Gandoca-Manzanillo Neotropics 1 2 Costa Rica Panama Humedal Caribe Noreste Neotropics 1 0 Costa Rica Nicaragua Humedal Maquenque Neotropics 1 0 Costa Rica Nicaragua Reserva Ecológica de Manglares Cayapas- Mataje Neotropics 1 0 Ecuador Colombia Complejo Güija Neotropics 1 2 El Salvador Guatemala Parque Nacional Laguna del Tigre Neotropics 1 2 Guatemala Mexico Punta de Manabique Neotropics 1 0 Guatemala Honduras Reserva de Usos Múltiples Río Sarstún Neotropics 1 0 Guatemala Belize Sistema de Humedales Cuyamel-Omoa Neotropics 1 0 Honduras Guatemala Sistema de Humedales de la Zona Sur de Honduras Neotropics 1 0 Honduras El Salvador, Nicaragua Deltas del Estero Real y Llanos de Apacunca Neotropics 1 0 Nicaragua El Salvador, Honduras Los Guatuzos Neotropics 1 0 Nicaragua Costa Rica Refugio de Vida Silvestre Río San Juan Neotropics 1 0 Nicaragua Costa Rica Río Negro Neotropics 1 2 Paraguay Plurinational State of Bolivia, Brazil Tinfunque Neotropics 1 2 Paraguay Argentina Lago Titicaca Neotropics 1 2 Peru Plurinational State of Bolivia

Santuario Nacional Los Manglares de Tumbes Neotropics 1 0 Peru Ecuador Plurinational State of Cuenca de Tajzara Neotropics 1 2 Bolivia Argentina Plurinational State of El Pantanal Boliviano Neotropics 1 2 Bolivia Brazil Plurinational State of Lago Titicaca Neotropics 1 2 Bolivia Peru Plurinational State of Palmar de las Islas y las Salinas de San José Neotropics 1 2 Bolivia Paraguay Bañados del Este y Franja Costera Neotropics 1 2 Uruguay Brazil North Baie de l'Isle-Verte America 1 2 Canada United States North Cap Tourmente America 1 2 Canada United States North Creston Valley America 1 2 Canada United States North Lac Saint-François America 1 2 Canada United States North Long Point America 1 2 Canada United States North Old Crow Flats America 1 2 Canada United States North Point Pelee America 1 2 Canada United States Ecosistema Ajos-Bavispe, zona de North influencia Cuenca Río San Pedro America 1 2 Mexico United States North Humedales del Delta del Río Colorado America 1 2 Mexico United States

North Laguna Madre America 1 0 Mexico United States North Parque Nacional Arrecifes de Xcalak America 1 0 Mexico Belize North Parque Nacional Lagunas de Montebello America 1 2 Mexico Guatemala Sistema de Humedales Remanentes del North Delta del Río Colorado America 1 2 Mexico United States North United States Niagara River Corridor America 1 2 of America Canada Tijuana River National Estuarine Research North United States Reserve America 1 2 of America Mexico Papua New Tonda Wildlife Management Area Oceania 1 0 Guinea Indonesia South Guapore Biological Reserve America 1 2 Brazil Bolivia South Taim Ecological Station America 1 2 Brazil Uruguay Complejo de Humedales Cuyabeno South Lagartococha Yasuní America 1 2 Ecuador Peru South French Basse-Mana America 1 0 Guiana Suriname

Appendix 2: Sources of information behind the Transboundary Wetland Database

1. Ramsar Sites Information Service 2. Griffin, P.J. (2012). The Ramsar Convention: A new window for environmental diplomacy? Institute for Environmental Diplomacy and Security Research Series. A1-2012-1. The University of Vermont. 3. Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network. (2020). https://whsrn.org/ 4. Nile Basin Initiative. (2018). Nile River Basin transboundary wetlands conservation. https://panorama.solutions/en/solution/nile-river-basin-transboundary-wetlands-conservation

Appendix 3: List of documents included in document analysis

Wadden Sea

Common Wadden Sea Secretariat. (1994). Ministerial Declaration of the Seventh Trilateral governmental Conference on the Protection of the Wadden Sea, Leeuwarden, November 30, 1994.

Common Wadden Sea Secretariat (2002) Esbjerg Declaration. Ministerial Declaration of the Ninth Trilateral Governmental Conference on the Protection of the Wadden Sea. Policy Assessment Report. Common Wadden Sea Secretariat, Wilhelmshaven, Germany.

Common Wadden Sea Secretariat. (2010). Wadden Sea Plan 2010. Eleventh Trilateral Governmental Conference on the Protection of the Wadden Sea. Common Wadden Sea Secretariat, Wilhelmshaven, Germany.

Common Wadden Sea Secretariat. (2010). Joint Declaration on the Protection of the Wadden Sea.

Common Wadden Sea Secretariat. (2010). Governance Arrangements Trilateral Wadden Sea Cooperation.

(2015). Wadden Sea World Heritage Strategy 2014-2020.

(2017). Road Map Wadden Sea World Heritage Strategy 2014-2020.

Okavango Delta

Green, O.O., Cosens, B.A., and Garmestani, A.S. (2013). Resilience in transboundary water governance: the Okavango River Basin. Ecology and Society, 18(2): 23.

OKACOM (The Permanent Okavango River Basin Water Commission). (2011). Okavango River Basin Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis. Maun, Botswana: OKACOM.

OKACOM. (2011). Strategic action programme (SAP) for the sustainable development and management of the Cubango-Okavango basin. Maun, Botswana: OKACOM.

Pinheiro, I., Gabaake, G., & Heyns, P. (2003). Cooperation in the Okavango river basin: The OKACOM perspective. 8.

UNESCO. (2019). Summary Report of the technical meeting Transboundary cooperation for protecting the Cubango-Okavango River Basin and improving the integrity of the Okavango Delta World Heritage property.

Hamoun Wetlands

Fazel, A., Khorasani, N., Panahi, M., Mehrdadi, M., Mojarad, A., Sharifi, A., Rabieh, S., & Dabiri, F. (2015). Hamoun Biosphere Reserve Nomination.

Hamoun_EU Support (2019)

Hamoun Info Sheet (2014)

Maleki, S., S. S. Koupaei, A. Soffianian, S. Saatchi, S. Pourmanafi, and V. Rahdari. (2019). Human and Climate Effects on the Hamoun Wetlands. Wea. Climate Soc., 11: 609–622. https://doi.org/10.1175/WCAS-D-18-0070.1.

Palmer-Moloney, L. (2011). Water's role in measuring security and stability in Helmand Province, Afghanistan. Water International, 36(2), 207-221. DOI: 10.1080/02508060.2011.560748

Sharifikia, M. (2013). Environmental challenges and drought hazard assessment of Hamoun desert lake in Sistan Region, Iran, based on the time series of satellite imagery. Natural Hazards, 65(1), 201-217. doi:http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.proxy.library.oregonstate.edu/10.1007/s11069-012-0353-8

4. Codebook

Description of concept or theme Notes Cooperation joint, cooperat-e/ed/ive/ively/ion, shar-e/ed/ing, collaborat-e/ed/ive/ively Division unilateral-ly, individual-ly, conflict/-ing agricultur-e/al | tourism & recreat-e/ion | climate change | culture | wildlife & species & natur-e/al & biodiversity & ecosystems | Focus conserv-e/ed/ing/ation & protect-ed/ion Formal institutions agreement, treaty Informal volunt-ary/eer marsh, swamp, wetland, tidal flat, mudflat, salt flat, salt pan, saltmarsh, fen, Relation to wetlands bog, etc.

5. Interview Questions

1. What does your organization focus on when it comes to wetland management (e.g., economic development, conservation, flood mitigation)?

2. How do the riparian countries work together on the management of the wetland? What processes or instruments govern this work?

3. Are decisions related to the wetland made unilaterally or through joint decision-making processes?

4. What levels of involvement are present in the shared wetland (e.g., local communities, specific interest groups, local/national/international government, external funders)? How do they interact (e.g., are local communities consulted in national or transboundary processes)?

5. What does your organization see as the biggest point of disagreement over the wetland (e.g., water extraction upstream, rights, sustainability, regulation, land use)?

6. How has your organization seen the wetland contribute to cooperation in the transboundary basin?

6. IRB Determination