4.7 Article

Fifteen-year experiences of the internationally shared aquifer resources management initiative (ISARM) of UNESCO at the global scale

期刊

JOURNAL OF HYDROLOGY-REGIONAL STUDIES
卷 20, 期 -, 页码 5-14

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrh.2017.12.003

关键词

Aquifer; Transboundary; Global; Cooperation; ISARM

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Study region: Global scale. Study focus: This paper highlights the main outputs and outcomes of the Internationally Shared Aquifer Resources Management Initiative (ISARM, 2000-2015) of UNESCO on the global scale. We discuss the lessons learned, what is still relevant in ISARM, and what we consider irrelevant and why. We follow with discussion on the looming scenarios and the next steps following the awareness on transboundary aquifers (TBAs) as identified by ISARM. New insights for the region: This analysis emphasizes the need for more scientific data, widespread education and training, and a more clearly defined role for governments to manage groundwater at the international level. It describes the links, approach and relevance of studies on TBAs to the UN Law of Transboundary Aquifers and on how they might fit regional strategies to assess and manage TBAs. The study discusses an important lesson learned on whether groundwater science can solve transboundary issues alone. It has become clear that science should interact with policy makers and social entities to have meaningful impacts on TBAs. Bringing together science, society, law, policy making, and harmonising information, would be important drivers and the best guidance for further assessments. ISARM can still make contributions, but it could be redesigned to support resolving TBAs issues which, in addition to science (hydrogeology), require considering social, political, economic and environmental factors. ISARM can increase its international dimension in the continents that still lag behind the assessment and shared management of TBAs, such as Asia and Africa.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据