THE ENVIRONMENT AS A LEGAL STAKEHOLDER: SECURING ECOLOGICAL FLOW IN TRANSBOUNDARY WATER AGREEMENTS (A STUDY OF THE ARAL SEA BASIN AND THE SUDOCHYE LAKE SYSTEM)

Authors

  • Dilshod Shamsiddin oʻgʻli Qoʻshayev University of World Economy and Diplomacy Master’s student International Relations and Water Diplomacy programme

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.23384157

Abstract

Transboundary water agreements have traditionally focused on the allocation of water resources among states and economic sectors, while the water requirements of deltaic ecosystems have often received comparatively limited attention. The environmental changes observed in the Aral Sea and its surrounding wetlands highlight the importance of incorporating ecological considerations more systematically into water governance. This article examines the potential benefits of recognising the natural environment as an independent water user with a legally protected, scientifically determined and enforceable entitlement to an ‘ecological flow’. Using the Sudochye lake system in the Amu Darya delta as a case study, the article explores opportunities for strengthening the legal recognition of ecosystem water requirements, identifies the hydrological, water-balance, salinity, groundwater and biological indicators needed to determine a sustainable minimum ecological flow, and proposes a basin-wide Ecological Flow Protocol. Additional recommendations include an independent ecological trusteeship, satellite-based verification, a compliance committee and structured third-party dispute settlement mechanisms to support effective transboundary cooperation.

Keywords

ecological flow, environmental flows, international water law, rights of nature, Aral Sea, Amu Darya, Sudochye, equitable and reasonable utilisation, transboundary cooperation

References

  1. 1.Micklin, P. (2007). The Aral Sea disaster. Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences, 35, 47–72.
  2. 2.Convention on the Law of the Non-navigational Uses of International Watercourses (New York, 21 May 1997; entered into force 17 August 2014). https://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/ conventions/8_3_1997.pdf
  3. 3.McCaffrey, S. C. (2019). The Law of International Watercourses (3rd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  4. 4.Tanzi, A., & Arcari, M. (2001). The United Nations Convention on the Law of International Watercourses: A Framework for Sharing. The Hague: Kluwer Law International.
  5. 5.Convention on the Protection and Use of Transboundary Watercourses and International Lakes (Helsinki, 17 March 1992).
  6. 6.Convention on Wetlands of International Importance especially as Waterfowl Habitat (Ramsar, 2 February 1971).
  7. 7.Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary/Slovakia), Judgment, ICJ Reports 1997, p. 7. https://www. icj-cij.org/case/92
  8. 8.Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v. Uruguay), Judgment, ICJ Reports 2010, p. 14. https:// www.icj-cij.org/case/135
  9. 9.Certain Activities Carried Out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua), Compensation, Judgment, ICJ Reports 2018, p. 15. https://www.icj-cij.org/case/150
  10. 10.Indus Waters Kishenganga Arbitration (Pakistan v. India), Final Award, Permanent Court of Arbitration, 20 December 2013. https://pca-cpa.org/en/cases/20/
  11. 11.Constitution of the Republic of Ecuador (2008), Articles 71–74.
  12. 12.Te Awa Tupua (Whanganui River Claims Settlement) Act 2017 (New Zealand). https://www.legislation. govt.nz/act/public/2017/0007/latest/whole.html
  13. 13.Constitutional Court of Colombia, Judgment T-622 of 2016 (Atrato River).
  14. 14.Stone, C. D. (1972). Should trees have standing? Toward legal rights for natural objects. Southern California Law Review, 45, 450–501.
  15. 15.O’Donnell, E. L., & Talbot-Jones, J. (2018). Creating legal rights for rivers: lessons from Australia, New Zealand, and India. Ecology and Society, 23(1), 7. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-09854-230107.
  16. 16.Arthington, A. H., Bhaduri, A., Bunn, S. E., et al. (2018). The Brisbane Declaration and Global Action Agenda on Environmental Flows (2018). Frontiers in Environmental Science, 6, 45.
  17. 17.Tharme, R. E. (2003). A global perspective on environmental flow assessment: emerging trends in the development and application of environmental flow methodologies for rivers. River Research and Applications, 19(5–6), 397–441. https://doi.org/10.1002/rra.736.
  18. 18.Tennant, D. L. (1976). Instream flow regimens for fish, wildlife, recreation and related environmental resources. Fisheries, 1(4), 6–10. https://doi.org/10.1577/1548-8446(1976)001<0006:IFRFFW>2.0.CO;2.
  19. 19.King, J., Brown, C., & Sabet, H. (2003). A scenario-based holistic approach to environmental flow assessments for rivers. River Research and Applications, 19(5–6), 619–639. https://doi.org/10.1002/rra.709.
  20. 20.Poff, N. L., Richter, B. D., Arthington, A. H., et al. (2010). The ecological limits of hydrologic alteration (ELOHA): a new framework for developing regional environmental flow standards. Freshwater Biology, 55(1), 147–170. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2427.2009.02204.x.
  21. 21.Poff, N. L., Allan, J. D., Bain, M. B., et al. (1997). The natural flow regime. BioScience, 47(11), 769–784.
  22. 22.Richter, B. D., Baumgartner, J. V., Powell, J., & Braun, D. P. (1996). A method for assessing hydrologic alteration within ecosystems. Conservation Biology, 10(4), 1163–1174. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-1739.1996.10041163.x.
  23. 23.Richter, B. D., Baumgartner, J. V., Wigington, R., & Braun, D. P. (1997). How much water does a river need? Freshwater Biology, 37(1), 231–249. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2427.1997.00153.x.
  24. 24.United Nations General Assembly Resolution 75/277, Declaring the Aral Sea region a zone of ecological innovations and technologies (2021). https://undocs.org/A/RES/75/277.
  25. 25.Agreement on Cooperation in the Joint Management, Use and Protection of Water Resources of Interstate Sources (Almaty, 18 February 1992). http://www.icwc-aral.uz/statute1.htm.
  26. 26.Dukhovny, V. A., & de Schutter, J. (2011). Water in Central Asia: Past, Present, Future. Leiden: CRC Press/Balkema.
  27. 27.International Boundary and Water Commission, Minute 319 (2012) and Minute 323 (2017). https:// www.ibwc.gov/treaties-minutes/minutes/
  28. 28.National Water Act 36 of 1998 (South Africa). https://www.gov.za/documents/national-water-act.
  29. 29.Brels, S., Coates, D., & Loures, F. (2008). Transboundary Water Resources Management: The Role of International Watercourse Agreements in Implementation of the CBD. CBD Technical Series No. 40. Montreal: Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity. https://www.cbd.int/doc/publications/cbd-ts-40-en.pdf.
  30. 30.Agreement on the Cooperation for the Sustainable Development of the Mekong River Basin (Chiang Rai, 5 April 1995). https://www.mrcmekong.org/assets/Publications/agreements/agreement-Apr95.pdf.

Downloads

Published

2026-10-15

How to Cite

Qoʻshayev, D. S. oʻgʻli. (2026). THE ENVIRONMENT AS A LEGAL STAKEHOLDER: SECURING ECOLOGICAL FLOW IN TRANSBOUNDARY WATER AGREEMENTS (A STUDY OF THE ARAL SEA BASIN AND THE SUDOCHYE LAKE SYSTEM). GREEN ECONOMY AND DEVELOPMENT, 4(10), 93–99. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.23384157

Issue

Vol. 4 No. 10 (2026): «Yashil iqtisodiyot va taraqqiyot» jurnali 10-son

Section

Articles

License

Copyright (c) 2026 GREEN ECONOMY AND DEVELOPMENT

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

DOI

https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.23384157

Pages

93-99

Citation

Open in Google Scholar
Vol. 4 No. 10 (2026): «Yashil iqtisodiyot va taraqqiyot» jurnali 10-son