Rejoinder of Bolivia

INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
DISPUTE OVER THE STATUS AND USE OF THE
WATERS OF THE SILALA
(CHILE v. BOLIVIA)
REJOINDER OF THE
PLURINATIONAL STATE OF BOLIVIA
VOLUME 1 OF 6
15 MAY 2019

REJOINDER
OF THE PLURINATIONAL STATE OF BOLIVIA
VOLUME 1
TITLE PAGE N°
Rejoinder 1
List of Annexes 57
Certification 65

INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
DISPUTE OVER THE STATUS AND USE OF THE
WATERS OF THE SILALA
(CHILE v. BOLIVIA)
REJOINDER OF
THE PLURINATIONAL STATE OF BOLIVIA
15 May 2019

TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................1
A. The Order of the Court and Chile’s Change of Position ...........................................................1
B. Bolivia’s Willingness to Engage in Joint Efforts Concerning the Silala Waters ..................4
C. Structure of the Rejoinder .............................................................................................................5
CHAPTER 2. SIMILARITIES ARISING FROM SCIENTIFIC STUDIES AS A BASIS
FOR AGREEMENTS BETWEEN THE PARTIES ...................................................................6
A. Silala Waters as a Complex System and the Applicability of Customary International Law
..........................................................................................................................................................7
B. Chile’s Recognition of Bolivia’s Sovereignty and Right to Dismantle the Artificial
Drainage Mechanisms and Channels...........................................................................................7
C. Rights and Obligations of the Parties under Customary International Law ...........................8
1. PRINCIPLE OF NO SIGNIFICANT HARM ..........................................................................................9
2. RIGHT TO EQUITABLE AND REASONABLE UTILIZATION .............................................................10
CHAPTER 3. ASPECTS THAT REQUIRE CLARIFICATION BY CHILE ....................11
A. Clarifications Needed from Chile Concerning Bolivia’s Right to Use the Waters of the
Silala ..............................................................................................................................................11
B. Clarifications Needed from Chile Concerning Bolivia’s Right to Dismantle the Artificial
Drainage Mechanisms and Channels.........................................................................................14
1. BOLIVIA’S RIGHT TO DISMANTLE THE ARTIFICIAL INFRASTRUCTURE AND CHILE’S
CURRENT USE OF SILALA WATERS ..........................................................................................15
2. BOLIVIA’S RIGHT TO DISMANTLE THE ARTIFICIAL INFRASTRUCTURE AND SIGNIFICANT
HARM CONSIDERATIONS ..........................................................................................................16
3. BOLIVIA’S RIGHT TO DISMANTLE THE ARTIFICIAL INFRASTRUCTURE AND THE NATURAL
STATE OF THE SILALA WATERS ..............................................................................................17
C. Relevance of Bolivia’s Counter-Claim a) ................................................................................20
CHAPTER 4. POINTS OF DISAGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PARTIES ....................21
A. Disagreement over the Volume of Artificially-Flowing Waters Attributable to the Artificial
Infrastructure ................................................................................................................................21
1. MAGNITUDE AND CHARACTERISTICS OF THE ARTIFICIAL INFRASTRUCTURE IN THE SILALA ....22
2. CONTRIBUTION OF THE ARTIFICIAL INFRASTRUCTURE TO THE SILALA WATERS .......................31
2.1. Chile’s Criticism of Bolivia’s Model is Scientifically Flawed and Based on Theoretical
Oversimplifications .........................................................................................................32
2.2. Follow-up Studies Further Confirm the Impact of Artificially Enhanced and Accelerated
Surface Flow of the Silala ...............................................................................................35
B. Disagreement over the Legal Nature of the Artificially Enhanced and Accelerated Surface
Flow of the Silala .........................................................................................................................38
1. BOLIVIA’S SOVEREIGNTY OVER THE ARTIFICIAL INFRASTRUCTURE IN ITS TERRITORY AFFORDS
BOLIVIA SOVEREIGNTY OVER THE ARTIFICIAL FLOWS GENERATED BY THAT INFRASTRUCTURE
...................................................................................................................................................38
2. AS A RESULT OF THE ARTIFICIAL INFRASTRUCTURE IN BOLIVIA OVER WHICH BOLIVIA
MAINTAINS SOVEREIGNTY, CHILE IS ACCRUING BENEFITS THAT BOLIVIA HAS NO OBLIGATION
TO MAINTAIN .............................................................................................................................43
2.1. Impact of the Artificial Channels and Drainage Mechanism on Bolivia’s Wetlands ......45
2.2. The Need to Return to Cooperation and Agreed Formulas of Mutual Benefit ................52
FINAL CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................................................54
SUBMISSIONS ..................................................................................................................................56
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Orthomosaic UAV Image of the South Wetland 01-16.
Figure 2 Layout Plan and Profile of the South Canal of the Silala N° 01-16.
Figure 3 Orthomosaic UAV Image of the North Wetland 14-16.
Figure 4 Layout Plan and Profile of the North Canal of the Silala N° 14-16.
Figure 5 Orthomosaic UAV Image of the Confluence Wetland 11-16.
Figure 6 Layout Plan of the Main Canal (Confluence Reach) of the Silala N° 11-16.
Figure 7 Main channel crossing the Bolivian-Chilean border.
Figure 8 Types of Vegetation in the South Wetland.
Figure 9 Types of Vegetation in the North Wetland.
Figure 10 Types of Vegetation in the Confluence Bofedal.
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Channel Types in the Silala.
Table 2 Area covered by active vegetation (NDVI > 0.2) in the Quebrada Negra, Cajones
and Orientales wetlands, from July to November 2018 (Table 5-1.)

1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1. On 6 June 2016 Chile filed its Application concerning the Dispute over the
Status and Use of the Waters of the Silala to the Court and submitted its
Memorial on 3 July 2017. Bolivia submitted its Counter-Memorial and
Counter-Claims on 3 September 2018, and Chile its Reply on 15 February
2019. This Rejoinder is submitted on 15 May 2019 in accordance with the
Order of the Court dated 15 November 2018.
A. The Order of the Court and Chile’s Change of Position
2. The Order of the Court directing the submission of a Reply and a Rejoinder
expressly limited these written submissions “to the Respondent’s counterclaims”
1. The decision was adopted after the President of the Court
ascertained, in accordance with Article 31 of the Rules of Court, the views of
the Parties, and following a meeting held by the President of the Court with
the Agents of the Parties on 17 October 2018.
1 Order of the Court dated 15 November 2018, fixing time-limits for the Reply and the Rejoinder,
p. 3. Bolivia’s counter-claims are the following:
“a) Bolivia has sovereignty over the artificial channels and drainage mechanisms in
the Silala that are located in its territory and has the right to decide whether and how
to maintain them; b) Bolivia has sovereignty over the artificial flow of Silala waters
engineered, enhanced, or produced in its territory and Chile has no right to that
artificial flow; c) Any delivery from Bolivia to Chile of artificially-flowing waters
of the Silala, and the conditions and modalities thereof, including the compensation
to be paid for said delivery, are subject to the conclusion of an agreement with
Bolivia” (BCM, p. 106, Submissions, para 2).
2
3. In said Order, the Court made reference to Chile’s letter dated 9 October 2018.
In this letter the Agent of Chile noted that “in order to expedite the procedure
her Government would not contest the admissibility of the Counter-Claims
contained in the Counter-Memorial of Bolivia”. It was further noted that:
“at a meeting held by the President of the Court with the Agents of the
Parties on 17 October 2018, the Agent of Chile reiterated the fact that
her Government did not intend to contest the admissibility of the
counter-claims of Bolivia”2.
4. In Chile’s opinion “a second round of written pleadings was not warranted
because the legal arguments and evidence put forward by the Parties in their
written pleadings –it assured– provided the Court with all the elements
necessary to decide on the merits of the case”3. This position was further
reiterated at a meeting held by the President of the Court with the Agents of
the Parties on 17 October 2018.4
5. Notwithstanding this, by Note dated 5 November 2018, Chile requested
Bolivia to submit digital data and documents referred to or relied on in Annex
17 and Annex 18 to the Counter-Memorial of Bolivia. According to Chile,
“these data are indispensable for the proper analysis of the DHI report by
Chile’s experts and should be readily available to DHI in digital format”5. On
2 Note dated 9 October 2018 from the Agent of Chile cited in the Order of the Court dated 15
November 2018, p. 3.
3 Chile specified that “[t]his includes the alleged distinction introduced by Bolivia between
‘natural’ and ‘artificial’ flows and the alleged legal consequences thereof. It is thus considered
unnecessary and inefficient, in terms of time and costs for both Parties, for the Court to order
a second round of written pleadings.” Note dated 9 October 2018 from the Agent of Chile cited
in the Order of the Court dated 15 November 2018, p. 3.
4 Dispute over the Status and Use of the Waters of the Silala (Chile v. Bolivia), Order of 15
November 2018.
5 Letter from the Court 4 December 2018 (Ref. 151394) transmitting Note of the Agent of Chile
dated 30 November 2018
3
29 March 2019, Bolivia noted that all the information requested by Chile,
both referenced and non-referenced documents, was produced by Bolivia’s
experts and kindly provided to Chile as soon as it became available, including
the necessary instructions to access them.6
6. Moreover, in its Reply, Chile submitted two new expert reports which,
according to Chile, “provide additional data to support and/or refine the
conclusions reached on their earlier experts reports submitted together with
Chile’s Memorial (CM) of 3 July 2017”7. Chile also indicates in the Reply
that these two new reports “are in turn supported by a number of underlying
studies into the Silala River that are annexed to the Reply”8.
7. The submission of these materials confirms that, contrary to Chile’s
assertions, there is a need to look further at the facts9 which are indeed
dispositive of the case10. The complex reality of the Silala waters, and the
factual and scientific material submitted by the Parties, requires the Court to
consider carefully all the evidence. In keeping with its practice, the Court will
6 For the exchanges of Notes, see Letter from the Court dated 6 November 2018 (Ref. 151325)
transmitting Note of the Agent of Chile dated 5 November 2018; Letter from the dated Court
4 December 2018 (Ref. 151394) transmitting Note of the Agent of Chile dated 30 November
2018; Letter from the Court dated 12 December 2018 (Ref. 151406) acknowledging receipt of
Note of Bolivia dated 11 December 2018; Letter from the Court dated 27 December 2018 (Ref.
151443) transmitting Note of the Agent of Chile dated 21 December 2018; Letter from the
Court dated 11 January 2019 (Ref. 151561) acknowledging receipt of Note of Bolivia dated 11
January 2019; Letter from the Court dated 8 February 2019 (Ref. 151593) acknowledging
receipt of Note of Bolivia dated 7 February 2019; Letter from the Court dated 25 March 2019
(Ref. 151936) transmitting Note of the Agent of Chile dated 25 March 2019; and Letter from
the Court dated 29 March 2019 (Ref. 152029) acknowledging receipt of Note of Bolivia dated
29 March 2019.
7 CR, para. 1.18.
8 CR, para. 1.18.
9 CR, para. 1.9.
10 CR, para. 1.17.
4
“make its own determination of the facts, on the basis of the totality of the
evidence presented to it, and it will then apply the relevant rules of
international law to those facts which it has found to be established”11.
B. Bolivia’s Willingness to Engage in Joint Efforts Concerning the Silala
Waters
8. As Bolivia stressed in its Counter-Memorial, the efforts by both Parties to
identify the nature of the Silala waters has been a continuing process since
2000.12 The present proceedings constitute another step in this ongoing
process, demonstrated by the fact that both Bolivia and Chile are still
expressing the need to commission and produce expert reports and studies.
This Rejoinder is part of those efforts as well as the need to settle the present
dispute.
9. Indeed, the settlement of the present dispute is important for international
cooperation and good-neighbourliness. As Bolivia declared in June 2017
before the United Nations Security Council, “States have the obligation to
manage, responsibly and in an integrated manner, water resources at all
levels, including transboundary waters, under the principle of cooperation”13,
and fresh water “must pave the way for opportunities that promote
collaboration, interaction and harmony among peoples, not that spark
conflicts surrounding its origin, ownership or use. Water jeopardizes peace
11 Certain Activities Carried Out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa
Rica v. Nicaragua) and Construction of a Road in Costa Rica along the San Juan River
(Nicaragua v. Costa Rica), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2015, p. 726, paras. 175-176. See also
Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v. Uruguay), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2010, p.
72, para. 168.
12 BCM, paras. 26-40.
13 United Nations, Security Council, 7959th meeting, 6 June 2017, S/PV.7959, p. 3.
5
and security among peoples; it must not be the cause of domestic or
international conflicts”14.
10. The present proceedings confirm the need for the Parties to continue
collaborating between them and pursue that objective. Bolivia has engaged,
and is willing to continue engaging, in a constructive dialogue with the view
to achieving a direct and friendly settlement.
C. Structure of the Rejoinder
11. The structure of the Rejoinder is as follows: Chapter 2 identifies the
similarities arising from the scientific studies as a basis for agreements
between the Parties. Chapter 3 deals with the points that require further
clarifications from Chile. Depending on their content, these clarifications
could bring the Parties closer in their understanding and eliminate the points
of disagreement on the issues in question. Chapter 4 focuses on the remaining
aspects of disagreement that still divide the Parties. Finally, Bolivia reiterates
its Submissions related to its Counter-Claims. This Rejoinder is accompanied
by 5 Volumes of Annexes, resuming at Annex 19 the numbering of the
Bolivia’s Counter-Memorial.
14 United Nations, Security Council, 7959th meeting, 6 June 2017, S/PV.7959, p. 5.
6
CHAPTER 2
SIMILARITIES ARISING FROM SCIENTIFIC STUDIES
AS A BASIS FOR AGREEMENTS BETWEEN THE PARTIES
12. In the Reply, Chile claims that the dispute has become “more limited” and
“has been very significantly reduced as compared to when Chile decided to
lodge its Application in June 2016”15. The fact that the Parties to a dispute
may come to agreements during contentious proceedings is to be welcomed
since the role of adjudication is to help States in settling their disputes.
According to well-established jurisprudence of the Court, recourse to
adjudication “is the final analysis [and] simply an alternative to direct and
friendly settlement between the parties”16.
13. This Chapter aims at identifying those points of convergence concerning,
first, the nature and legal regime applicable to the Silala waters (Section A)
followed by the implications of Chile’s recognition of Bolivia’s sovereignty
over the drainage mechanisms and channels (Section B) and, finally, the
rights and obligations arising for the Parties as a result of the nature of Silala
waters (Section C).
15 CR, paras. 1.3 and 1.16.
16 Delimitation of the maritime boundary in the Gulf of Maine area, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports
1984, p. 266, para. 22.
7
A. Silala Waters as a Complex System and the Applicability of Customary
International Law
14. Based on the latest scientific findings, the experts consulted by both Parties
have been able to conclude that the naturally occurring Silala flow follows the
topographic gradient, crossing the border from Bolivia into Chile, and
constitutes an international watercourse governed by customary international
law.17 Both Parties agree that customary international law is applicable
between the two States. Neither Bolivia nor Chile is a State Party to the 1997
UN Convention on the Law of the Non-Navigational Uses of International
Watercourses (1997 Watercourses Convention).18
15. Experts of both Parties define the Silala as a complex system19, noting that its
exact nature and functioning remain uncertain. Chile’s expert reports indicate
for instance that:
“the detail of the geology is highly complex […] This means that the
groundwater flow paths, the distribution of permeability and origins of
recharge to different spring systems are also complex and not precisely
known”.20
B. Chile’s Recognition of Bolivia’s Sovereignty and Right to Dismantle the
Artificial Drainage Mechanisms and Channels
16. The Parties agree that the installation of artificial waterworks in Bolivia
consists of the excavation of earthen channels in the wetlands and the
17 BCM, paras. 44 and 110; CR, para. 1.3.
18 CM, para. 1.5; BCM, paras. 79, 153 and 171. Convention on the Law of the Non-Navigational
Uses of International Watercourses, UN Doc A/RES/51/229 (1997).
19 CR, para. 3.11 (“complex nature of the Silala River and groundwater flow systems”).
20 CR, Peach, D.W. and Wheater, H.S. Concerning the Geology, Hydrogeology and
Hydrochemistry of the Silala River Basin, 2019, p. 49. CR, Vol. 1, p. 215.
8
straightening and lining of the natural channel.21 Scientific studies conducted
by both Parties also agree that the channelization has reduced the extent of
surface water in Bolivian wetlands.22
17. Chile does not contest “Bolivia’s sovereignty over artificial channels and
drainage mechanisms located in its territory” 23 and, more broadly, it does not
contest Bolivia’s Counter-Claim a), which refers to Bolivia’s “right to decide
whether and how to maintain” these waterworks. Chile recognizes that
Bolivia is entitled to such rights.24
18. Experts of both Parties identified that the drainage works and the
channelization of the Silala waters, which Bolivia describes in detail in the
Counter-Memorial25, have had, and continue to have, an effect on the increase
of surface flows of Silala waters. According to Chile’s experts, “[b]oth we
and Bolivia’s experts agree that the “[c]onstruction of drainage channels and
river channelization in the 1920s will have had some effect on the flow [at the
border]. An increase in flow due to these works is expected”26.
C. Rights and Obligations of the Parties under Customary International
Law
19. In order to identify the similarities in conclusions with respect to rights and
obligations of the States, Bolivia will first deal with the principle of no
21 CR, para. 2.14; BCM, para. 49.
22 CR, para. 3.9.
23 CR, para. 1.5.
24 CR, para. 1.14.
25 BCM, paras. 48-55.
26 CR, Weather, H.S. and Peach, D.W. Impacts of Channelization of the Silala River in Bolivia
on the Hydrology of the Silala River Basin, pp. 11 and 44. CR, Vol. 1, p. 140.
9
significant harm (Subsection 1) and then it will refer to the right of equitable
and reasonable utilization (Subsection 2).
1. PRINCIPLE OF NO SIGNIFICANT HARM
20. Chile claims that the dispute has become more limited, in part, as a result of
Bolivia’s acknowledgment that “both riparian States have rights and
obligations with respect to equitable and reasonable utilization of the Silala,
prevention of significant harm, cooperation, timely notification of planned
measures which may have a significant adverse effect, exchange of data and
information and, where appropriate, the conduct of environmental impact
assessments”27. Bolivia agrees that these rules apply to the naturally-flowing
waters of the Silala.
21. In the Counter-Memorial, Bolivia indicates, in particular, that “both Chile and
Bolivia are each entitled to equitable and reasonable use “in relation to the
naturally flowing waters of the Silala”28. Both States have an “obligation to
take all appropriate measures to prevent the causing of significant
transboundary environmental harm in the Silala”29. They also share an
“obligation to cooperate and provide the other State with timely notification
of planned measures which may have a significant adverse effect on
naturally-flowing Silala waters, exchange data and information and conduct
where appropriate environmental impact assessment”30.
27 CR, para. 1.3.
28 BCM, para. 120.
29 BCM, Submissions, para. 1 e).
30 BCM, Submissions, para. 1 f).
10
22. Chile no longer claims that under international law the “no harm” principle
applies to any kind of harm. In the Reply, Chile agrees with Bolivia that this
principle only applies to “significant” transboundary environmental harm.31
2. RIGHT TO EQUITABLE AND REASONABLE UTILIZATION
23. The Parties agree that the Silala waters, at their current state, have been used
only or exclusively by Chile thus far.32 Chile states in the Reply that “it does
not claim to pre-empt any future uses by Bolivia of the Silala River”33. Chile
acknowledges that Bolivia possesses under international law the right to use
the waters of the Silala. According to Chile, it “does not seek in any way to
freeze further development and use of the waters so far as concerns either
State”34. Bolivia and Chile converge in determining that Bolivia has the right
to use those waters “to the extent that such uses are consistent with the
principle of equitable and reasonable utilization”35.
31 CR, para. 2.39. Bolivia’s position is that “the ‘no significant harm’ principle applies under
customary international law only to significant environmental harms and not, as Chile alleges
in its Submissions, to “prevent and control pollution and other forms of harm” without
qualifications.” BCM, para. 134.
32 CM, paras. 1.3 c) and 5.8.
33 CR, para. 1.15.
34 CM, para. 6.5.
35 CR, para. 1.15.
11
CHAPTER 3
ASPECTS THAT REQUIRE CLARIFICATION BY CHILE
24. Chile agrees that Bolivia has the right under customary international law to
use the waters of the Silala.36 Chile also recognizes Bolivia’s sovereignty over
the drainage mechanisms and artificial channels within Bolivia’s territory, as
well as its sovereign right to dismantle them.37 However, Chile’s
interpretation of those rights might result in a qualification of Bolivia’s rights
in a manner that might be equivocal and incompatible with international law.
25. This Chapter deals with two potential limitations to Bolivia’s rights, namely
Bolivia’s right to use the waters of the Silala (Section A), and Bolivia’s
sovereignty over the artificial channels and its right to dismantle them
(Section B). Finally, Bolivia notes the relevance of its Counter-Claim a)
(Section C).
A. Clarifications Needed from Chile Concerning Bolivia’s Right to Use the
Waters of the Silala
26. Chile acknowledges that Bolivia has a right to use the waters of the Silala,
but only “to the extent that such uses are consistent with the principle of
equitable and reasonable utilization […]”, as well as other obligations under
customary international law.38 In addition, in the submissions of the
Memorial, Chile asks the Court to declare that “[u]nder the standard of
36 CR, para. 1.15.
37 CR, paras. 1.8 (b), 1.14 and 1.15.
38 CR, para. 1.15.
12
equitable and reasonable utilization, Chile is entitled to its current use of the
waters of the Silala River”39. Bolivia’s acceptance of this claim will depend
on the meaning Chile ascribes to the phrase “entitled to its current use” in this
context. Chile’s alleged entitlement to that use of Silala waters could be
interpreted to relegate Bolivia’s right to use these waters to a secondary or
subservient status.
27. The equitable and reasonable utilization of an international watercourse is an
evolving and dynamic concept. The distribution of water and benefits must
be reconsidered at any given moment in relation to any changes in the existing
hydrologic, economic, social and other characteristics.40 If Bolivia were to
initiate its own use of the waters, that new use in conjunction with Chile’s
existing use, would have to be taken into consideration and assessed (together
with other relevant factors) by both States to determine their respective
equitable and reasonable utilization rights at that moment.
28. The International Law Commission (ILC), in the preparatory work for the
elaboration of the 1997 Watercourses Convention refers to the equitable
utilization (together with equitable participation that complements the first)
as one of the most fundamental rules of customary international law for
international watercourses.41 The basic understanding of equitable and
39 CM, Submission c) (emphasis added).
40 S. McCaffrey, The Law of International Watercourses, Oxford University Press, 2007, at p.
388 (stating that the doctrine of equitable apportionment, from which the principle of equitable
utilization emerges, “is ‘flexible’ […] in a temporal sense: what is an ‘equitable apportionment’
may change over time”); and at p. 402 (asserting that, “Equitable utilization is not an abstract
and static state of affairs, but one that must be arrived at through an ongoing comparison of the
situations and uses of the states concerned”).
41 Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 1994, Vol. II, Part 2, pp. 96-97, para. 1 of the
Commentary on Draft Article 5.
13
reasonable utilization entails both a right and obligation for States. As the ILC
explains:
“[a] watercourse State has the right, within its territory, to a reasonable
and equitable share, or portion, of the uses and benefits of an
international watercourse. Thus a watercourse State has both the right
to utilize an international watercourse in an equitable and reasonable
manner and the obligation not to exceed its right to equitable utilization
or, in somewhat different terms, not to deprive other watercourse States
of their right to equitable utilization”42.
If Bolivia decides to dismantle the waterworks, Chile cannot make any claims
based on its current flow. Chile cannot superimpose its rights to equitable and
reasonable use over those corresponding to Bolivia.
29. If Chile clarifies that it agrees with Bolivia’s understanding, there would no
longer be any issues dividing the Parties on Bolivia’s right to use the waters
of the Silala.
30. In the application of the exercise of the right to equitable and reasonable use
and participation, the ILC has considered situations in which States must
consult with “a spirit of cooperation”, adding that “[e]xamples of situations
giving rise to such a need include natural conditions, such as a reduction in
the quantity of water [...]”43. Bolivia is not obliged under international law to
maintain the current, enhanced flow of the Silala. Nevertheless, in the spirit
of good neighborliness and cooperation that must guide the Parties, Bolivia
does not oppose the possibility to engage in dialogue and consultations with
42 Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 1994, Vol. II, Part 2, p. 97, para. 2 of the
Commentary on Draft Article 5.
43 Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 1994, Vol II, Part 2, p. 102, para. 5 of the
Commentary on Draft Article 6.
14
Chile. Bolivia is open and welcomes any cooperation aimed at resolving
issues concerning the Silala, especially considering the uncertainties
surrounding its waters and their sustainability and governance.
B. Clarifications Needed from Chile Concerning Bolivia’s Right to
Dismantle the Artificial Drainage Mechanisms and Channels
31. In its Counter-Claims Bolivia requests the Court to make a twofold
declaration that Bolivia has sovereignty over the manufactured
channelization works located in Bolivian territory and that, as a corollary of
its sovereignty, Bolivia can decide whether and how to manage and dismantle
that artificial channelization system.44 Chile agrees with this Counter-Claim
and fully recognizes Bolivia’s sovereignty over the drainage mechanism and
artificial infrastructure present in the Silala.45 However, Bolivia considers that
Chile’s recognition needs to be clarified because of how Chile refers to and
qualifies Bolivia’s sovereignty.
32. Chile offers only abstract references to the obligations of riparian states – e.g.,
equitable and reasonable utilization, prevention of significant harm, and prior
notification.46 Bolivia agrees with the application of the relevant customary
rules. However, Chile’s interpretations of those duties might conflict with
those of Bolivia’s, and thereby constrain Bolivia’s sovereign right to decide
whether and how to manage and dismantle the artificial channelization system
in a manner that is compatible with international law. In particular, such
conflicts might arise with respect to Chile’s alleged entitlement to its current
use of those waters (Subsection 1), Chile’s interpretation of Bolivia’s
44 BCM, para. 165 a).
45 CR, para. 1.14.
46 CR, para. 1.15.
15
sovereign right vis a vis potential allegations of significant harm (Subsection
2), and Chile’s perspective on natural state of the Silala if the artificial
drainage mechanisms and channels in Bolivia are dismantled (Subsection 3).
1. BOLIVIA’S RIGHT TO DISMANTLE THE ARTIFICIAL INFRASTRUCTURE AND
CHILE’S CURRENT USE OF SILALA WATERS
33. Chile states that it does not contest the right of Bolivia to dismantle the
drainage mechanism and artificial infrastructure “insofar as Bolivia’s
exercise of sovereignty complies with its obligations regarding the Silala as
an international watercourse”47. This qualification is even more ambiguous
considering that, in its Memorial, Chile asked the Court to adjudge and
declare that Chile “is entitled to its current use of the waters of the Silala
River”48.
34. Chile’s qualifications could be read as meaning that Bolivia’s rights to
dismantle the artificial infrastructure could be constrained if its actions
resulted in a reduction in the current flow regime such that it prevents Chile
from enjoying its existing uses. This is what Chile seems to suggest when it
claims that it has a “right to the reasonable and equitable use of Silala waters
– all Silala waters, including any that may allegedly have been ‘saved’ by the
works constructed in Bolivia”49. However, considering that Chile does not
possess such a right under international law, this is a point on which further
clarification is required.
47 CR, para. 1.14.
48 CM, Submission c) (emphasis added).
49 CR, para. 2.32 (emphasis added).
16
2. BOLIVIA’S RIGHT TO DISMANTLE THE ARTIFICIAL INFRASTRUCTURE AND
SIGNIFICANT HARM CONSIDERATIONS
35. With regard to the obligation not to cause significant harm, as Chile suggests
in its Memorial, “States sharing an international watercourse are under an
obligation to take all appropriate measures to prevent the causing of
significant harm to other watercourse States”50. If Bolivia sought to dismantle
the artificial infrastructure that was installed within its territory and return the
Silala to its natural, pre-artificial state, it would do so in accordance to its
rights and obligations under international law and in a manner that does not
create significant transboundary environmental harm. Bolivia therefore
agrees with the articulation of the rule, which is correct in its general terms.
However, it is its application to the particular circumstances of the Silala that
should be further clarified.
36. The obligation not to cause significant harm must be determined
proportionally by balancing against the rights of the acting State to pursue its
own interests and priorities, such as development and environmental
protection and restoration. In the context of development, the Arbitral
Tribunal in the Indus Waters Kishenganga Arbitration asserted that, “[t]he
requirement to avoid adverse effects on Pakistan’s agricultural and
hydroelectric uses of the waters of the Kishenganga/Neelum cannot, however,
deprive India of its right to operate the [Kishenganga Hydroelectric Plant]”51.
37. In the Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay case, the Court addressed Article 27
of the Statute of the River Uruguay, which permits State Parties to use the
50 CM, para. 5.14.
51 In the Matter of the Indus Waters Kishenganga Arbitration (Pakistan v. India), Partial Award,
Permanent Court of Arbitration, 18 February 2013, para. 446.
17
river’s water within their respective jurisdiction for permissible purposes
without the obligation of complying with certain procedural requirements
found in earlier provisions of the Statute, even “when the use is liable to affect
the regime of the river or the quality of its waters”52. In that case, the Court
asserted that Article 27 “embodies this interconnectedness between equitable
and reasonable utilization of a shared resource and the balance between
economic development and environmental protection that is the essence of
sustainable development”53.
38. In the present case, any potential significant harm as a result of Bolivia’s
management or removal of the artificial works must necessarily consider
Bolivia’s purpose and objectives in taking that action. Chile has already
recognized Bolivia’s right to dismantle the artificial infrastructure in its
territory and, with respect to its wetlands in particular, encourages Bolivia to
pursue their restoration.54 Whether Bolivia decides to remove the drainage
mechanisms and artificial channels, to utilize Silala water for domestic or
economic activities, or to take other action related to the Silala within its
borders lies within Bolivia’s sovereign rights.
3. BOLIVIA’S RIGHT TO DISMANTLE THE ARTIFICIAL INFRASTRUCTURE AND
THE NATURAL STATE OF THE SILALA WATERS
39. In its Reply, Chile asserts that Bolivia must remove the channels “in a manner
not to impair the natural conditions of the Silala water system”55. Chile either
confuses the current condition of the Silala with its true “natural” state, or has
52 Article 27 of the Statute of the River Uruguay, signed at Salto on 26 February 1975.
53 Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v. Uruguay), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2010, p.
64, para. 177.
54 CR, paras. 1.8, 1.14 and 2.73.
55 CR, para. 1.8.b).
18
decided to ignore its artificial aspects. In either case, Chile seems to ask the
Court to improperly adjudge the “current” state of the Silala as “natural”.
40. As recognized by Chile to a certain extent56, the Silala has been modified
from its pre-channelized original condition and flow as a direct result of the
installation of a vast network of approximately 6,600 m of artificial channels,
pipes and earthen and lined ditches installed within Bolivia and continuing
into Chilean territory.57 The artificial channelization of the Silala drains
groundwater from the region’s aquifers into the artificial network, accelerates
groundwater-fed spring flows, and has effectively drained much of the
region’s aquifers and wetlands.
41. Prior to the channelization, the Silala region within Bolivia was covered by
high altitude wetlands known as bofedales that spanned an estimated 141,200
m2 (or 14.1 Ha). Today, those wetlands have shrunk to a mere 6,000 m2 (or
0.6 Ha).58 While the pre-channelization flow regime in the region cannot be
definitively characterized, updated hydrologic numerical models of the Silala
suggest that surface flows, absent the artificial infrastructure, would decline
56 Chile, for instance, refers in its Reply to the artificial waterworks located in Bolivia as
“consisting of the excavation of earth channels in the wetlands and straightening and lining of
the natural river channel”. CR, para. 2.14.
57 BCM, para. 51.
58 BCM, para. 73. The data from a recent study provides that: “[…] the total area of study in
Silala covers 114,817 m2 (11.48 Ha) […] Of this total, only 7,680 m2 (0.76 Ha) correspond to
the actual bofedal at present. In conclusion, it can be affirmed that 107,137 m2 (10.7 Ha) of
bofedal have been lost due to the channelization.” FUNDECO, Study of Evaluation of
Environmental Impacts in the Silala, 2018, p. 55. BR, Vol. 3, Annex 23.3. See DHI, Technical
Analysis and Independent Validation Opinion of Supplementary Technical Studies Concerning
the Silala Springs, December 2018. BR, Vol. 3, Annex 23.
19
by 11%-33% below current flow rates.59 Today the Silala is no longer in a
“natural” state.60
42. If Bolivia removes the manufactured infrastructure present in Bolivia’s Silala
region, the artificiality of the Silala will begin to reverse and the wetlands,
aquifers, springs, and flow regime will slowly begin to return to their natural
conditions.61 However, given the multitude of artificial changes, the Silala
waters will never fully revert to its pre-channelized conditions, but rather
convert to a new “natural” equilibrium state. This, in turn, will modify the
“current” transboundary flow of water in the Silala, which, as noted above,
has been enhanced by artificial waterworks. It can be expected that removal
of the infrastructure could lead to changes in the Silala as it currently flows
into Chile.
43. Dismantling the infrastructure, however, will also lead to effects downstream
in terms of water quality. Elimination of the artificial works, in particular the
dozens of lateral canals and the concrete desiltation chamber, will allow sand,
silt, and other natural elements from the wetlands to infiltrate Silala waters in
Bolivia, which will flow across the border into Chile. Moreover, if Chile’s
claim is true that the infrastructure was erected for sanitary purposes,
specifically to prevent insects from breeding and contaminating the water with
59 DHI, Sensitivity Analysis of the Model Boundaries, April 2019, p. 47. BR, Vol. 5, Annex 25.
60 Danish Hydraulic Institute (DHI), Study of the flows in the Silala Wetlands and Springs
System, 2018, Annex I: Questionnaire put by the Plurinational State of Bolivia to DHI, p. 83.
BCM, Vol. 2, Annex 17.
61 However, given the multitude of artificial changes that have been imposed on the Silalaʼs
wetlands in Bolivia, their recovery will take “a much longer time scale, probably decades”.
Danish Hydraulic Institute (DHI), Study of the flows in the Silala Wetlands and Springs
System, 2018, Annex I: Questionnaire put by the Plurinational State of Bolivia to DHI. BCM,
Vol. 2, Annex 17.
20
their larva62 (which Bolivia asserts was mere pretext), then it may be
reasonable to expect insects to start breeding again in Bolivia’s Silala region
as the wetlands begin to recover toward their pre-channelization, natural
extent.
C. Relevance of Bolivia’s Counter-Claim a)
44. In response to Bolivia’s Counter-Claim a), Chile affirms that it agrees with
Bolivia’s position and that as a result, there is no dispute between the two
Parties on this Counter-Claim. Consequently, Chile claims that the Court
either lacks jurisdiction over this Counter-Claim, or that it is moot, or
otherwise rejected.63 However, absent any clarification on the exact meaning
of Chile’s qualifications of Bolivia’s rights under Counter-Claim a), Bolivia
cannot accept Chile’s submission concerning this Counter-Claim.
45. Contrary to Chile’s claim that “there is no extant dispute regarding Bolivia’s
sovereignty over its territory”64, disagreements between the Parties continue
to exist with respect to Chile’s understanding of the actions that Bolivia can
take in exercising its sovereign right vis a vis maintaining or dismantling the
artificial infrastructure located within its territory.65 As a result, clarification
of Chile’s positions is necessary.
62 CR, para. 2.19.
63 CR, Submission a).
64 CR, para. 1.5.
65 According to the jurisprudence of the Court, it “may pronounce judgment only in connection
with concrete cases where there exists at the time of the adjudication an actual controversy
involving a conflict of legal interests between the parties”, which means that the Court has
jurisdiction to entertain cases for which the judgment on the merits can “have some practical
consequences in the sense that it can affect existing legal rights or obligations of the parties,
thus removing uncertainty from their legal relations.” Northern Cameroons (Cameroon v
United Kingdom), Preliminary Objections, Judgment, 2 December 1963, I.C.J. Reports 1963,
pp. 33-34. In the present case, the decision of the Court on Bolivia’s Counter-Claim “would
21
CHAPTER 4
POINTS OF DISAGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PARTIES
46. In Chapter 2 of this Rejoinder, Bolivia identified similarities in the
conclusions arising from scientific studies as a basis for agreements between
the Parties. Then, Chapter 3 of the Rejoinder dealt with the aspects that still
require further clarification by Chile. In this final Chapter 4, Bolivia turns to
the treatment of the two main issues that still divide the Parties and their
experts, namely the volume of artificially flowing waters generated by the
artificial infrastructure (Section A) and the legal nature of the artificially
enhanced and accelerated surface flow of the Silala (Section B).
A. Disagreement over the Volume of Artificially-Flowing Waters
Attributable to the Artificial Infrastructure
47. Before turning to the analysis of the disagreement over the volume of
artificially flowing waters generated by the artificial infrastructure and its
importance for the comprehension of Silala waters and, in order to assist the
Court to understand the in situ situation, it is necessary to describe first the
degree of magnitude of the hydraulic works installed in Bolivian territory
(Subsection 1). This preliminary exercise shows to what extent it is untenable
not be without object because it would affect existing rights and obligations of the Parties […]
and would be capable of being applied effectively by them.” Application of the Interim Accord
of 13 September 1995 (the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia v. Greece), Judgment, 5
December 2011, I.C.J. Reports 2011, pp. 662-663, paras. 47-54. In addition, a case is not moot
when concessions made by one Party do not dispose of the dispute in its entirety. See Southern
Bluefïn Tuna Case between Australia and Japan and between New Zealand and Japan, Award
on Jurisdiction and Admissibility, Decision of 4 August 2000, UNRIAA, Vol. XXIII, p. 38,
para. 46.
22
to maintain, as Chile does, that these works have not caused a greater impact
on the natural flow of Silala waters (Subsection 2).
1. MAGNITUDE AND CHARACTERISTICS OF THE ARTIFICIAL INFRASTRUCTURE
IN THE SILALA
48. The waterworks in the Silala can be identified in Bolivian territory as early as
1906 according to the Water Rights Registry of the Direction-General of
Chile (Dirección General de Aguas). This Registry referred to the existence
of two different dams as source of the concession, one located in Chilean
territory and the other in Bolivian territory.66
49. In 1997, Bolivia conducted a study in order to identify, among other elements,
the characteristics of the canalization system in the Silala. The investigation
identifies 94 small collection works; 27,000 m of channels covered with dry
masonry; 2,500 m of channels covered with stone masonry with mortar;
17,600 m of 10-inch pipe laying; 4,600 m of 12-inch pipe laying; 1 combined
work, loading, unloading, decantation and control in Bolivian territory; 1
66 Contrary to Chile’s assertions that the intakes and canalization works were installed in Bolivia
since 1910 (CR para 2.61 p 46), the 1906 Chilean Concession to THE ANTOFAGASTACHILI
AND BOLIVIA RAILWAY P.L.C. was registered as follows:
“F.C.A.B. owns a right of 20,500 m3/day equivalent to 237 l/s, from two dams.
Dam 1: Located in the natural course of the Siloli River, in the territory of the
Republic of Bolivia, 575 meters east of the international boundary with the
Republic of Chile, UTM.
Dam 2: In the Siloli channel, in the territory of Chile, 36 meters west of the
Chile-Bolivia international boundary, UTM Coordinates: 7565750 N and
600925 E.
The source of the Siloli River is located in an area called the Cajon spring and
part of the eastern springs of the Department of Potosi, Province of San Antonio
Lopez, Quetene Vice-Canton, Bolivia, 35.5 kilometers east of the border
between Chile and Bolivia.”
See Chile’s Direction-General of Water, 2019. BR, Vol. 5, Annex 28.
23
combined work, loading, unloading, decantation and control in current
Chilean territory; 1 storage and control work in current Chilean territory.67
50. In 2018, more specific studies of the hydraulic works estimated that in the
three Silala ravines these works reach almost a hundred drainage mechanisms
including a total of 6,429.5 m of built channels.68 The slopes of these channels
vary from 1.2% to 6.2%69, with a more gentle incline in the upper part of the
South Ravine which then becomes more steep as the ravine develops
(especially in the North Ravine and the Main Ravine). The horizontal
alignment of the canals is rectilinear, with an absence of gradual curvature in
the changes of direction (atypical in watercourses). The set of collection or
intake works were built to operate on the source of water right where it
originates trying to reduce the loss of water as much as possible.70
51. In the southern ravine, 61 springs have been identified in three categories
according to their flow contributions.71 In this ravine a main canal with a
67 R. Gómez-García Palao, Transboundary Water Resources between the Republics of Bolivia
and Chile - Silala, April 1997, p. 58. BR, Vol. 2, Annex 22.
68 IHH, Report: Characterization and Efficiency of the Hydraulic Works Built and Installed in
the Silala Sector, 2018, p. 93. BR, Vol. 2, Annex 23.1. See DHI, Technical Analysis and
Independent Validation Opinion of Supplementary Technical Studies Concerning the Silala
Springs, December 2018. BR, Vol. 3, Annex 23. See also Bolivia’s Annex of Cartography of
the Wetlands of the Silala and Drone video. BR, Vol. 6, Annex 29 and Annex 30.
69 IHH, Report: Characterization and Efficiency of the Hydraulic Works Built and Installed in
the Silala Sector, 2018, p. 81. BR, Vol. 2, Annex 23.1. See DHI, Technical Analysis and
Independent Validation Opinion of Supplementary Technical Studies Concerning the Silala
Springs, December 2018. BR, Vol. 3, Annex 23.
70 IHH, Report: Characterization and Efficiency of the Hydraulic Works Built and Installed in
the Silala Sector, 2018, p. 92. BR, Vol. 2, Annex 23.1. See DHI, Technical Analysis and
Independent Validation Opinion of Supplementary Technical Studies Concerning the Silala
Springs, December 2018. BR, Vol. 3, Annex 23. See also Annex of Cartography of the
Wetlands of the Silala and Drone video. BR, Vol. 6, Annex 29 and Annex 30.
71 IHH, Report: Characterization and Efficiency of the Hydraulic Works Built and Installed in
the Silala Sector, 2018, p. 16. BR, Vol. 2, Annex 23.1. See DHI, Technical Analysis and
Independent Validation Opinion of Supplementary Technical Studies Concerning the Silala
Springs, December 2018. BR, Vol. 2, Annex 23.
24
length of 2,871 m and several secondary canals with a length of 814.5 m have
been built; the cross sections of these canals vary between 0.71 to 3.2 m in
width and from 0.19 to 0.5 m depth.72 (See Figure 1 and Figure 2)
72 According to the type of canal: i) without coating excavated in natural soil (main: 1,826.0 m,
secondary: 764.67 m,); ii) with masonry coating (main: 461.0 m, secondary: 49.8 m); iii) canals
in rock (main: 584.0 m, secondary:−). IHH, Report: Characterization and Efficiency of the
Hydraulic Works Built and Installed in the Silala Sector, 2018, p. 48. BR, Vol. 2, Annex 23.1
Cartography of the Wetlands of the Silala. BR, Vol. 6, Annex 29. See DHI, Technical Analysis
and Independent Validation Opinion of Supplementary Technical Studies Concerning the
Silala Springs, December 2018. BR, Vol. 2, Annex 23.
25
Figure 1: Orthomosaic UAV Image of the South Wetland 01-16.73
Figure 2: Layout Plan and Profile of the South Canal of the Silala N° 01-16.74
73 Plan 1.1 Orthomosaic UAV Image of the South Wetland 01-16. Appendix A, p. 4. BR, Vol. 6,
Annex 29.
74 Layout Plan and Profile of the South Canal of the Silala N° 01-16. Appendix A, p. 5. BR, Vol.
6, Annex 29. See also C. Barrón, Study of Georeferencing, Topographic survey and
determination of the infiltration capacity in the event of possible surface runoff in the area of
the Silala springs, May 2018. BR, Vol. 2, Annex 23.2. DHI, Technical Analysis and
UNLINED CANALS EXCAVATED IN NATURAL SOILS
' ,,
\'
I.., ,' , .
. • .
· i·: :,
..t , ' .
·.', ' ',
26
52. In the northern ravine, 77 springs have been identified in three categories
according to the flow contributions.75 The canals constructed in this ravine
have cross sections of between 0.40 to 0.48 m in width, and from 0.22 to 0.55
m in depth; the main canal has a length of 688 m, with many secondary canals
connecting to the various springs with a collective length of 1,112 m.76 These
canals are constructed predominantly of stone masonry.77 (See Figure 3 and
Figure 4)
Independent Validation Opinion of Supplementary Technical Studies Concerning the Silala
Springs, December 2018. BR, Vol. 2, Annex 23.
75 IHH, Report: Characterization and Efficiency of the Hydraulic Works Built and Installed in
the Silala Sector, 2018, p. 18. BR, Vol. 2, Annex 23.1. See DHI, Technical Analysis and
Independent Validation Opinion of Supplementary Technical Studies Concerning the Silala
Springs, December 2018. BR, Vol. 2, Annex 23.
76 Without coating excavated in i) natural soil: main: 170.0 m and secondary: -); ii) with masonry
coating: (main: 518.0 m and secondary: 1112.0 m); iii) canals in rock (main: - and secondary:
-); Totals: (main: 688.0 m and secondary 1112.0 m). IHH, Report: Characterization and
Efficiency of the Hydraulic Works Built and Installed in the Silala Sector, 2018, pp. 58-59.
BR, Vol. 2, Annex 23.1. See DHI, Technical Analysis and Independent Validation Opinion of
Supplementary Technical Studies Concerning the Silala Springs, December 2018. BR, Vol. 2,
Annex 23.
77 IHH, Report: Characterization and Efficiency of the Hydraulic Works Built and Installed in
the Silala Sector, 2018, p. 58. Vol. 2, Annex 23.1. See DHI, Technical Analysis and
Independent Validation Opinion of Supplementary Technical Studies Concerning the Silala
Springs, December 2018, BR, Vol. 2, Annex 23.
27
Figure 3: Orthomosaic UAV Image of the North Wetland 14-16.78
Figure 4: Layout Plan and Profile of the North Canal of the Silala N° 14-16.79
78 Plan 1.27 Orthomosaic UAV Image of the North Wetland 14-16. Appendix A, p. 30. BR, Vol.
6, Annex 29.
79 Layout Plan and Profile of the North Canal of the Silala N° 14-16. Appendix A, p. 31. BR,
Vol. 6, Annex 29. See also C. Barrón, Study of Georeferencing, Topographic Survey and
determination of the infiltration capacity in the event of possible surface runoff in the area of
28
53. In the main ravine, below the confluence of the northern and southern ravines,
the canal is of greater capacity than the northern and southern canals, and
transports water from both canals to the border. This canal has average
dimensions of 0.8 m of width and 0.65 m of depth. It was built with stone
masonry lining the walls at its base, and it has a length of 706 m.80 (See
Figure 5 and Figure 6).
the Silala Springs, May 2018. BR, Vol. 2, Annex 23.2. DHI, Technical Analysis and
Independent Validation Opinion of Supplementary Technical Studies Concerning the Silala
Springs, December 2018. BR, Vol. 2, Annex 23.
80 IHH, Report: Characterization and Efficiency of the Hydraulic Works Built and Installed in
the Silala Sector, 2018, p. 61 BR, Vol. 2, Annex 23.1. DHI, Technical Analysis and
Independent Validation Opinion of Supplementary Technical Studies Concerning the Silala
Springs, December 2018. BR, Vol. 2, Annex 23.
29
Figure 5: Orthomosaic UAV Image of the Confluence Wetland 11-16.81
Figure 6: Layout Plan of the Main Canal (Confluence Reach) N° 11-16.82
81 Plan 1.21 Orthomosaic UAV Image of the Confluence Wetland 11-16. Appendix A, p. 24. BR,
Vol. 6, Annex 29.
82 Plan 1.22 Layout Plan and Profile of the Main Canal (Confluence Reach) of the Silala N° 11-
16. Appendix A, p. 25. BR, Vol. 6, Annex 29. See also C. Barrón, Study of Georeferencing,
Topographic survey and determination of the infiltration capacity in the event of possible
surface runoff in the area of the Silala springs, May 2018. BR, Vol. 2, Annex 23.2. DHI,
STONE-LINED CANALS
30
54. The main canal crosses the border from Bolivian territory into Chilean
territory and continues for a few meters until reaching the desiltation
chamber. From this desiltation chamber, Chile diverts the water through pipes
and canals to the Codelco copper mines, as well as to water distribution
systems in Antofagasta and Calama and other Chilean cities.
Figure 7: Main channel crossing the Bolivian-Chilean border.
(Source: DIREMAR, 2019)
Technical Analysis and Independent Validation Opinion of Supplementary Technical Studies
Concerning the Silala Springs, December 2018. BR, Vol. 2, Annex 23.
31
55. For illustrative purposes, the following table indicates the extension of each
channel type:
TYPE
OF CHANNEL
WITHOUT COATING
EXCAVATED IN
NATURAL SOIL
WITH
MASONRY
COATING
CANALS
IN ROCK TOTALS
SOUTH BOFEDAL
Main 1826.0 461.0 584.0 2871.0
Secondary 764.67 49.8 − 814.5
NORTH BOFEDAL
Main 170.0 518.0 − 688.0
Secondary − 1112.0 − 1112.0
CONFLUENCE
REACH
Main 0.0 706.0 − 706.0
Secondary − 238.0 − 238.0
Table 1: Channel Types in the Silala. Source: DIREMAR based on IHH, 2018.83
2. CONTRIBUTION OF THE ARTIFICIAL INFRASTRUCTURE TO THE SILALA
WATERS
56. Having described the magnitude of the works in the previous subsection, the
present section of this Rejoinder focuses on the ill-founded and scientifically
flawed contentions made in Chile’s Reply with respect to the question of the
volumes of water generated by the extensive artificial waterworks installed in
the Silala. To this end, this subsection addresses Chile’s criticism of Bolivia’s
83 IHH, Report: Characterization and Efficiency of the Hydraulic Works Built and Installed in
the Silala Sector, 2018, pp. 48, 59 and 62. BR, Vol. 2, Annex 23.1. DHI, Technical Analysis
and Independent Validation Opinion of Suplementary Technical Studies concerning the Silala
Springs. BR, Vol. 2, Annex 23.
32
model (2.1) and, then, turns to the follow-up studies that further confirm the
impact of artificially enhanced and accelerated surface flow of Silala (2.2).
2.1. Chile’s Criticism of Bolivia’s Model is Scientifically Flawed and Based
on Theoretical Oversimplifications
57. As part of its Counter-Memorial, Bolivia submitted scientific reports based
on extensive integrated numerical modeling that described expected
conditions on the Silala without the channels and drainage mechanisms. The
model evidenced that, if the channels and drainage mechanisms were
removed, the Silala surface flows would decrease by 30%-40%,
evapotranspiration from the restored wetlands would increase by 20%-30%,
and sub-surface groundwater flow through the 450 m wide cross-section of
the Silala catchment area at the Bolivian-Chilean border would increase by
7% -11%.84
58. In sharp contrast to Bolivia’s analysis, and despite not having conducted any
study in the field in Bolivian territory, Chile has sought to discount Bolivia’s
studies arguing that the series of artificial works described have had, at most,
an insignificant impact on cross-border water flow and volume in the Silala.
In its Reply, Chile alleges that “Bolivia’s estimation of 30%-40% ‘artificiallyenhanced
flow’ […] is […] grossly exaggerated”85. Chile does not offer its
own estimates as to the volumetric effect of the artificial infrastructure on the
Silala’s water flow (it nonetheless acknowledges that such an effect has
occurred).
84 BCM, para. 70.
85 CR, para. 1.9.
33
59. Chile maintains that “the model [developed by the experts of Bolivia] is based
on an incorrect understanding of geology and hydrogeology”86. In particular,
Chile’s experts argue that the model “does not represent the geology correctly
either stratigraphically or structurally and invokes a fault system that is both
unmapped and geometrically highly unlikely”87.
60. Bolivia’s experts have assessed all of the observations made by Chile’s
experts and consider that Chile's criticisms are highly simplified and ignore
the peculiarities of the flow of the Silala waters.88 Particularly, DHI observed
that “the validity of Chile’s simplified impact calculation is questionable and
therefore do not support the claim that DHI’s impact are exaggerated. The
analysis [made by Chile] is based on the one-dimensional Darcy equation,
which is only valid under idealized conditions not satisfied at Silala”89. In
DHI’s view “The groundwater aquifer is not homogenous […] The
groundwater flow is not one dimensional but rather highly three-dimensional.
In particular, the one-dimensional Darcy approach does not represent
correctly the observed changes in groundwater gradients and therefore the
flows towards the spring discharge zone and lacks reference to field data”90.
61. DHI also asserts that “Chile emphasizes the importance of the highly complex
[…] geology, yet they ignore this complex geology in their simplified
86 CR, para. 3.18.
87 CR, Expert Report: Peach D. W. and Weather, H. S., Concerning the Geology, Hydrogeology
and Hydrochemistry of the Silala River Basin, p. 35. CR, Vol. 1, p. 201.
88 DHI, Analysis and Assessment of Chile’s Reply to Bolivia’s Counter-Claims on the Silala
Case, March 2019. BR, Vol. 5, Annex 24.
89 DHI, Analysis and Assessment of Chile’s Reply to Bolivia’s Counter-Claims on the Silala
Case, March 2019, p. 7. BR, Vol. 5, Annex 24.
90 DHI, Analysis and Assessment of Chile’s Reply to Bolivia’s Counter-claims on the Silala Case,
March 2019, p. 7. BR, Vol. 5, Annex 24.
34
analysis. This is a clear inconsistency, which brings into question the validity
of their assessments of the canalization impact.”91 Concerning Chile’s
observations on the inexistence of a fault zone with high hydraulic
conductivities, DHI considers that “the field data do support DHI’s
hydrogeological model and it is consistent with Chile’s borehole
information.”92 Hence, the “technical approach employed […] allowed for
the development of a numerical model that was calibrated to field
characterization data including hydraulic parameters and head distributions at
various depths.”93
62. The evidence for the Silala fault and fractures is supported by the studies
completed by SERGEOMIN (2003)94 and (2017)95 as well as recent studies
conducted by Bolivian experts and the Tomás Frías Autonomous University.96
91 DHI, Analysis and Assessment of Chile’s Reply to Bolivia’s Counter-claims on the Silala Case,
March 2019, p. 8. BR, Vol. 5, Annex 24.
92 DHI, Analysis and Assessment of Chile’s Reply to Bolivia’s Counter-claims on the Silala Case,
March 2019, p. 8. BR, Vol. 5, Annex 24.
93 DHI, Analysis and Assessment of Chile’s Reply to Bolivia’s Counter-claims on the Silala Case,
March 2019, p. 8. BR, Vol. 5, Annex 24.
94 SERGEOMIN (National Service of Geology and Mining), Study of the Geology,
Hydrogeology and Environment of the Area of the Silala Springs, June 2000-2001, Final
Edition 2003, p. 18. BR, Vol. 3, Annex 23.5, Appendix A. DHI, Technical Analysis and
Independent Validation Opinion of Supplementary Technical Studies Concerning Silala
Springs, December 2018. BR, Vol. 2, Annex 23.
95 SERGEOMIN, Structural Geological Mapping of the Area Surrounding the Silala Springs,
September 2017, pp. 59-61 and pp. 84-86. BR, Vol. 4, Annex 23.5, Appendix B. DHI,
Technical Analysis and Independent Validation Opinion of Supplementary Technical Studies
Concerning Silala Springs, December 2018. BR, Vol. 2, Annex 23.
96 F. Urquidi, Technical Analysis of Geological, Hydrological, Hydrogeological and
Hydrochemical Surveys completed for the Silala Water System, June 2018. BR, Vol. 3, Annex
23.5. Tomás Frías Autonomous University (TFAU), Hydrogeological Characterization of the
Silala Springs, 2018, pp. 6-8 and pp. 17-18. BR, Vol. 4, Annex 23.5, Appendix c. DHI,
Technical Analysis and Independent Validation Opinion of Supplementary Technical Studies
Concerning Silala Springs, December 2018. BR, Vol. 3, Annex 23.
35
2.2 Follow-up Studies Further Confirm the Impact of Artificially Enhanced
and Accelerated Surface Flow of the Silala
63. Given the complex nature and numerous uncertainties of the Silala, as well as
the limited availability of data, especially in the Far Field area of the Silala
ravine, Bolivia and its experts have continued to refine their modeling based
on actual field measurements in the Near Field, as well as by conducting a
sensitivity analysis of the model boundaries.97
64. The results of the updated model, whose geographic extent is necessarily
constrained to the Near Field area98, indicates that, if the channels and
drainage mechanisms were removed, cross-border surface flows in the Silala
would decrease by 11% to 33% of current conditions.99 The study further
reveals that evapotranspiration from wetlands without canals will increase by
28% to 34% of the reference values, i.e. between 2.8 and 3.4 l/s, while
groundwater flows across the 450 m wide Silala cross-section at the border
will increase between 4% and 10% as compared to current conditions. Similar
results are determined by the sensitivity analysis in relation to a scenario with
restored wetlands.100
65. Bolivia’s expert’s model is consistent with field observations that were
conducted as early as 1922, and documented that in that year only 131 l/s
97 A sensitivity analysis is the study of how the uncertainty in the output of a mathematical model
or system (numerical or otherwise) can be divided and allocated to different sources of
uncertainty in its inputs. BR, Vol. 5, Annex 25.
98 Contrary to Chile’s assertions, assessing the Silala’s flow regime with and without the artificial
infrastructure is infeasible and “would inevitably be based on a lot of assumptions about the
presently uncharacterized areas of the aquifer.” DHI, Sensitivity Analysis of the Model
Boundaries, April 2019, p. 19. BR, Vol. 5, Annex 25.
99 DHI, Sensitivity Analysis of the Model Boundaries, April 2019, p. 37. BR, Vol. 5, Annex 25.
100 DHI, Sensitivity Analysis of the Model Boundaries, April 2019, pp. 31-32, and p. 37. BR, Vol.
5, Annex 25.
36
flowed across the border.101 That volume is 18%-38% lower than present
observations (160-210 l/s), and correspond to the findings of Bolivia’s
experts. Bolivia’s argument regarding the volume of artificially flowing
waters attributable to the artificial infrastructure is two-fold.
66. On the one hand, the water that is “generated” by the engineered works in
Bolivia due to a reduction of 28% to 34% in evapotranspiration from the
wetlands (accounting for between 2.8 and 3.4 l/s of current surface flows),
comprises water that would never have reached Chile under natural, nonchannelized
conditions. Chile has already recognized this.102 Furthermore, a
recent study completed in Bolivia has quantified a restored bofedal
evapotranspiration of approximately 5.9 l/s.103
67. On the other hand, the volume of artificially-flowing Silala waters attributable
to the engineered infrastructure also includes water that originates from
wetlands in Bolivia. The numerous engineered lateral canals effectively drain
the aquifers and wetlands and drain the groundwater into the Silala channel,
which then transmits the water, along with naturally occurring surface flows,
into Chile. According to Bolivia’s experts, and as had already been observed
by Fox’s field study in 1922, the artificial component of the surface flows
crossing the border into Chile amounts to between 11%-33% of current
surface flows. While under non-channelized conditions this water would have
101 Robert H. Fox, “The Waterworks Department of the Antofagasta (Chili) & Bolivia Railway
Company”, South African Journal of Science, 1922, p. 123. CM, Vol. 3, Annex 75.
102 CR, para. 3.47.
103 FUNDECO, Study on the Water Requirements of the Silala Wetlands, April 2019, p.44. BR,
Vol. 5, Annex 26. DHI, Technical Analysis and Independent Validation Opinion of
Supplementary Technical Studies Concerning the Silala Springs, December 2018. BR, Vol. 2,
Annex 23.
37
eventually flowed into Chile as groundwater, that flow would have occurred
on a different time scale.
68. The artificial infrastructure in Bolivia has transferred a percentage of the
groundwater to the surface waters, accelerating its flow to Chile at a velocity
that is exponentially faster than the groundwater flow that normally moves
through aquifers. The surface flows of the Silala from Bolivia to Chile have
been enhanced in terms of volume and flow. Bolivia has conducted studies
on the velocity of the water that flows in the channels and has concluded that
the water reaches a velocity of 0.4 m/s, with extremes that vary between 0.2
m/s and 1.0 m/s, approximately.104
69. The artificial infrastructure has also drained the waters that were naturally
retained by the wetlands for their functioning. It should be noted that
“wetlands need an adequate amount and quality of water [...] to sustain nature
and to provide water-related ecosystem services and benefits to humans.”105
In this regard, new studies carried out by Bolivia in the Silala bofedals, in its
territory, to quantify the water requirements of these resources have revealed
that the volume of water that is currently retained in their peat is of
approximately 48.4 thousands of m3, which would increase 7 times - up to
353.8 thousands of m3 - once the bofedals are restored.106
104 IHH, Characterization and Efficiency of the Hydraulic Works built and installed in the Silala
Sector, 2018, p. 93. BR, Vol. 2, Annex 23.1. DHI, Technical Analysis and Independent
Validation Opinion of Supplementary Technical Studies Concerning Silala Springs, December
2018. BR, Vol. 2, Annex 23.
105 S. Barchiesi, P.E. Davies, K.A.A Kulindwa, G. Lei, and L. Martinez Ríos del Río,
Implementing environmental flows with benefits for society and different wetland ecosystems
in river systems, Ramsar Policy Brief No. 4, 2018, Gland, Switzerland, Ramsar Convention
Secretariat. Available at https://bit.ly/2V7NfUv.
106 FUNDECO, Study on the Water Requirements of the Silala Wetlands, April 2019, p. 54. BR,
Vol. 5, Annex 26. DHI, Technical Analysis and Independent Validation Opinion of
Supplementary Technical Studies Concerning Silala Springs, December 2018. BR, Vol. 2,
Annex 23.
38
B. Disagreement over the Legal Nature of the Artificially Enhanced and
Accelerated Surface Flow of the Silala
70. Bolivia submitted in its Counter-Claims b) and c) that it “has sovereignty over
the artificial flow of Silala waters engineered, enhanced, or produced in its
territory, and Chile has no right to that artificial flow”, and “that any delivery
of artificially-flowing waters of the Silala to Chile” is “subject to the
conclusion of an agreement with Bolivia”107. Bolivia further argued that
customary international law on the use of transboundary watercourses applies
“only to the rate and volume of Silala water that flows naturally across the
Bolivian-Chilean border”108. Moreover, it maintained that, in the absence of
an agreement between “Bolivia and Chile on the management or distribution
of the Silala and its waters, Bolivia has full rights and authority over the
artificially created flows and volumes of Silala water coursing across that
frontier”109. Bolivia’s position is supported by its sovereignty and rights over
the artificial infrastructure within its territory, which Chile has recognized
(Subsection 1), and the benefits accruing to Chile resulting from the artificial
flow of Silala water into Chile (Subsection 2).
1. BOLIVIA’S SOVEREIGNTY OVER THE ARTIFICIAL INFRASTRUCTURE IN ITS
TERRITORY AFFORDS BOLIVIA SOVEREIGNTY OVER THE ARTIFICIAL FLOWS
GENERATED BY THAT INFRASTRUCTURE
71. Bolivia, in exercising its sovereignty over the waterworks located within its
territory, has no legal or any other obligation to maintain the artificial
channels and drainage mechanisms. Similarly, Bolivia is not required to
107 BCM, paras. 165 b) and c).
108 BCM, para. 110.
109 BCM, para 110.
39
maintain the artificial flows crossing the Bolivian-Chilean border. This is not
contested by Chile, which has recognized Bolivia’s sovereignty over the
waterworks located within its territory and its “right to decide whether and
how to maintain” these works.110
72. Despite this recognition, Chile relies on Article 25 of the 1997 Watercourses
Convention to contest the implications of the artificial flow generated by the
drainage mechanisms and channelization works in the Silala waters, thereby
questioning Bolivia’s sovereign right over this component of the flow111.
Chile does not engage in any effort to show how this provision applies to nonstate
parties to the Convention. In addition, the travaux préparatoires
demonstrates that this article was never intended to address the augmentation
of the volume of the watercourse flow through artificial works, but only to
the augmentation of the efficiency and quality. According to Article 25(3) of
both the ILC Draft Articles and 1997 Watercourses Convention, the
“regulation” refers only to “the use of hydraulic works or any other continuing
measure to alter, vary or otherwise control the flow of the waters”. Finally,
the case law referred to by Chile in its Reply does not concern the
augmentation of the volume of the flow of water, but rather to the
improvement of navigation, flooding management, making existing flows
more efficient, and providing water for various uses.112
73. Moreover, Chile mistakenly refers to a decision of the Supreme Court of
Colorado of 1984 to conclude that “salvaged water”, meaning “tributary
water made available for beneficial use through elimination of waste”, cannot
110 CR, para 1.14
111 CR, para. 2.7.
112 CR, para. 2.7.
40
provide the basis for a water right that is independent of the system of water
rights on the stream.113 While apparently pertaining solely to the water
“created” by the artificial infrastructure (water that would not flow to Chile
under non-channelized conditions), this decision is not dispositive to the
present case.
74. A more recent, contrary case can be found in another US State (California).
In City of Santa Maria v. Adam114, the Court of Appeal of California defined
“salvaged water” as “water that is saved from waste as when winter
floodwaters are dammed and held in a reservoir” and concluded that “a
priority right to salvages water belongs to the one who made it available”. In
this case, one of the parties collected and stored storm water (that would
otherwise have flowed to the sea unused) behind a reservoir that augmented
the underlying aquifer. The Court determined that the augmented volume of
water in the aquifer constituted “salvaged” water and was owned by the party
that created it. It also stated that even if the augmented water was released
and allowed to flow in the stream, it was “foreign in time” and therefore
constituted “rescued water; the rescuer has the prior right to it”.
75. It is also noteworthy that the City of Santa Maria v. Adam case relied on an
earlier case, i.e. Pomona etc. Co. v. San Antonio etc. Co. 115 In the latter case,
the California Supreme Court ruled that 19% of the natural flow that was
salvaged through various structures installed in the upper segment of the river
belonged to the upstream user so long as the downstream riparian received
113 CR, paras. 2.8-2.10.
114 City of Santa Maria et.al. v. Adam et. al., Court of Appeal, Sixth District, California, November
21, 2012, 211.
115 Pomona etc. Co. V. San Antonio etc. Co., Supreme Court of California, 17 January 1908, 152
Cal. 618 (1908)
41
the volume of water that they were normally entitled to. The Court also ruled
that the waters that were “rescued” by the upstream user were essentially
“new waters”, and the right to use and distribute that new water belonged to
the upstream party that produced them.
76. It is also worth mentioning that the EU Water Framework Directive (2000)
considers the “artificial” character and “highly modified” of waters generated
by human intervention in the following terms:
“8. Artificial water body means a body of surface water created by
human activity.
9. Heavily modified water body means a body of surface water which
as a result of physical alterations by human activity is substantially
changed in character […]”116
77. Although the terms “artificial water body” and “heavily modified water body”
refer to bodies of water at a surface level that have undergone alterations and
require States to protect, improve and regenerate them117, the common and
central element is that the alterations have been caused by human activity, as
in the Silala. The presence of artificial works and drainage mechanisms has
caused noticeable and quantitative impacts, such as the increase in the Silala
flow and the degradation of wetlands in Bolivian territory.
78. With respect to the issue of territorial sovereignty, Chile’s argument based on
the condition of shared natural resource is both misplaced and contrary to
116 European Parliament and the Council of the European Union, Directive 2000/60/EC
establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy, 23 October 2000,
p. L. 327/6.
117 European Parliament and the Council of the European Union, Directive 2000/60/EC
establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy, 23 October 2000,
p. L. 327/9.
42
Chile’s own position.118 First, Bolivia’s Counter-Claims b) and c) only apply
to the artificial infrastructure and artificially enhanced flow of water in the
Silala. Second, Chile admits that Bolivia has sovereignty over the artificial
channels and drainage mechanisms. Third, as Chile stated before the United
Nations General Assembly in 2013 in relation to the law applicable to
transboundary aquifers, the general principles of customary international law
include “the sovereign right of each State to promote the management,
supervision and sustainable use of an aquifer in its own territory”119. This
language confirms that there is nothing contradictory, as a matter of principle,
with the claim of sovereignty over transboundary natural resources.
79. In its Reply, Chile also refers to the terms “sovereignty” and “exclusive
sovereignty”, suggesting that they have different meanings and that Chile
agrees with the idea that Bolivia has sovereignty, but not exclusive
sovereignty.120 Again, Chile’s argument is misguided. Bolivia does not
disagree with Chile on the principle that an international watercourse is a
shared natural resource under contemporary international law, and subject,
therefore, to the limited sovereignty of all of the riparian States.121 The issue
in the present case, however, is that Chile seems to question Bolivia’s
sovereignty over the artificial flow.122
118 CR, para. 2.26 ff.
119 United Nations General Assembly, Sixty-eighth Session, 2013, UN Doc. A/C.6/68/SR.16,
2013, para. 47.
120 CR, paras. 2.27-2.28.
121 CR, para. 2.29 ff.
122 Chile’s assertion that Bolivia does not have exclusive sovereignty over the artificial flow –
because, “[e]ven if, quod non, any portion of the flow of the Silala is ‘enhanced’ as Bolivia
contends, that is still part of the Silala system of waters, a system that Bolivia shares with
Chile”, CR, para. 2.29.
43
80. In its Reply, Chile refers to the Lac Lanoux Arbitration case to suggest that
by claiming sovereignty over the artificial flows in the Silala, Bolivia is
asserting a right of veto over Chile to receive Silala waters.123 That decision,
however, is inapposite to the present case since it did not concern a situation
where a downstream State is taking advantage of artificial mechanisms within
an upstream State, which are augmenting the flow of water into the
downstream State’s territory.
2. AS A RESULT OF THE ARTIFICIAL INFRASTRUCTURE IN BOLIVIA OVER WHICH
BOLIVIA MAINTAINS SOVEREIGNTY, CHILE IS ACCRUING BENEFITS THAT
BOLIVIA HAS NO OBLIGATION TO MAINTAIN
81. As a consequence of the artificial flows in the Silala, Chile is accruing
considerable benefits, at no cost (either environmental or financial), that it
would not receive under natural, non-channelized conditions. Chile has
already acknowledged that up to 2% of the Silala’s current flow relates to
water that would have evaporated from the wetlands had they not been
drained by the artificial works.
82. The engineered channels and drainage mechanisms in Bolivia have
transferred groundwater from springs within Bolivia into surface water and
accelerated the flow of that former groundwater into Chile via surface flows,
thereby delivering Silala groundwater to Chile years (and possibly longer)
before they would have presumably reached the border under natural
conditions. 124 As a result, Chile is able to use that water today at no additional
123 CR, paras. 2.24-2.25.
124 Describing the age of groundwater in the subsurface as 1,000 years in the Northern and 11,000
in the Southern wetlands, as explained by DHI: “The existing channels provide a network that
drain the groundwater and conveys this water rapidly away from the Silala springs. By
removing the channels, the groundwater is drained less efficiently, the resistance to flow
emerging on the surface is increased and the groundwater levels will increase”). DHI,
44
cost, and with no consideration for the future consequences that such
accelerated and enhanced flows might provoke to the springs and the
wetlands in Bolivia.
83. Chile is receiving additional surface water via the artificial flows that under
natural conditions presumably would have flowed through the subsurface. As
a result, Chile is benefitting from not having to invest and engage in securing
water from other, more costly sources of freshwater, such as diversions from
distant sources or having to employ drilling and pumping technology and
developing a well field on its side of the border to access the transboundary
groundwaters. Moreover, Chile is benefitting from not having to ensure that
such actions, especially pumping from aquifers that traverse the Bolivian-
Chilean border, abide by its obligations under customary international law vis
a vis Bolivia.125
84. The benefits described are specifically and directly derived from the
manufactured channels and drainage mechanisms installed inside Bolivian
territory. They are not the product of the natural conditions of the Silala
waters. As a result, absent any agreement between Bolivia and Chile on the
benefit accruing from these artificial infrastructures, Bolivia is entirely
entitled to maintain, dismantle, or otherwise manage those works in
conformity with its own interests and customary international legal norms
governing transboundary watercourses.
Sensitivity Analysis of the Model Boundaries, April 2019, pp. 15 and 27. BR, Vol. 5, Annex
25.
125 See CR, para. 1.3. This would require Chile to warrant that its extractions and uses do not
violate its equitable and reasonable use and no significant harm obligations, and that its actions
comport with prior notification, environmental impact assessments (including to determine
whether or not there is a risk of depleting the aquifers), exchange of data and information, and
related responsibilities that Chile has previously recognized as binding under customary
international law.
45
85. It is is important to note, and Bolivia takes note for any future action, that
Chile excludes its own responsibility over the canals, and recognizes that the
FCAB Company built and installed waterworks in Bolivian territory.126
Notwithstanding the above, Chile can neither deny nor ignore that the
advantages it has been receiving as a result of the artificial waterworks in
Bolivia are consequence of an intensive exploitation of and impact on
Bolivia’s wetlands (2.1) in a context that should instead call for advanced
bilateral cooperation and agreed formulas of mutual benefit (2.2).
2.1. Impact of the Artificial Channels and Drainage Mechanisms on Bolivia’s
Wetlands
86. For a century, the use of the channels has solely benefited Chile through an
accelerated artificial flow resulting from the canalization works. The
wetlands in Bolivia’s territory have significantly reduced their extension, due
to the drying up of the bofedals, as has been verified by the Ramsar Inspection
Mission in Bolivia.127
87. Chile notes that the conclusions of the Ramsar report on the degradation of
wetlands in the Silala are not justified and contradict DHI’s observations and
other expert reports.128 Chile reached such a conclusion on the basis of a
comparison between the wetlands located in Bolivian territory and the
wetland of the Negra Ravine located in Chile. In support to its claim, Chile
126 See CR, paras. 2.70-2.71. As a result of these waterworks, the flows of the Silala waters were
increased and utilized for human consumption and industrial purposes in Chilean territory. In
the context of the concession granted to the Bolivian company DUCTEC S.R.L., Bolivia
sought to bill water operators for the exploitation of these waters, and Chile objected. See: Note
S/N of The Antofagasta (Chili) and Bolivia Railway P.L.C. addressed to the Company
DUCTEC S.R.L., Antofagasta, 23 August 2000. BR, Vol. 5, Annex 27.
127 See Ramsar Convention Secretariat, Report Ramsar Advisory Mission N° 84, Ramsar Site Los
Lípez, Bolivia, 2018. BCM, Vol. 5, Annex 18.
128 CR, p. 68.
46
submitted a Table (see below), which provides a comparison of the area of
the Cajones and Orientales bofedals (from July to November 2018).
Table 2: Table 5-1. Area covered by active vegetation (NDVI > 0.2) in the Quebrada
Negra, Cajones and Orientales wetlands, from July to November 2018 (Table 5-1.).129
88. This Table appears to indicate that the Orientales wetlands grew
geographically 4.64 Ha in one month, from 2.86 Ha in September to 6.09 Ha
in October, and to 7.50 Ha in November, suggesting an overall expansion of
250% during this time period. This conclusion contradicts the scientific data
and the characteristic of the Silala area. As result of the high altitude and
extreme temperatures of the area, the growth of the bofedals is very slow. The
growth from 2.86 Ha to 7.50 Ha in a period of two months is an
overestimation that reveals flawed calculation that cannot be reasonably
accepted.
89. Chile’s experts also concluded that the channelization activities in the
Bolivian wetlands, which are focused entirely on the flat topography of the
valley floors, have not significantly affected the area of active wetlands in
valley floors.130 Chile went even further and claimed that the Ramsar’s
conclusions “appear wholly unfounded and counterfactual”131, without
129 Muñoz, J.F. and Suárez, F. Negra Ravine Wetland Study, 2019, p. 52. CR, Vol. 3, Annex XIII.
130 CR, Wheater, H. S. and Peach D. W., Impacts of the Canalization of the Silala River in Bolivia
on the Hydrology of the Silala River Basin, p. 40. CR, Vol. 1, p.136.
131 CR, para. 3.43.
Area covered bv active ve.,etation (ha)
July August September October November
Qnebrada Negra
wetland
2.13 2.31 2.58 4.12 3.43
Cajones wetland 0.81 1.12 1.31 2.20 2.41
Orientales Wetland 2.23 2.70 2.86 6.09 7.50
47
conducting any field study of its own. This is another failed attempt to
minimize the impact of the drainage mechanisms and canalization system on
the loss of biodiversity in the Silala, in addition to that demonstrated on the
flow rate and flow volume, and on the geographic extent of the bofedales.
90. The scientific evidence presented with this Rejoinder supports the conclusion
that “the reduction of the bofedal area as a consequence was of approximately
of 94%”132. The degradation of the wetlands and the reduction of their
extension has been confirmed by FUNDECO in 2018, whose methodology is
based on field visits and observations.133 This recent study concludes that the
Silala bofedals are in a fragmented134, degraded and highly vulnerable
state135, as a result of the hydraulic works, adding that:
“[…] the total area of study of Silala covers 114,817 m2 (11.48
hectares). Most of the wetland corresponds to the South Bofedal
(87,892 m2), while the North Bofedals and confluence area are smaller
(20,290 m2 and 6,635 m2, respectively). Of this total, only 7,680 m2
(0.76 hectares) correspond to actual bofedal at present. In conclusion, it
132 FUNDECO, Study of Evaluation of Environmental Impacts in the Silala, May 2018, p. 7. BR,
Vol. 3, Annex 23.3. For the study palynological study, see: FUNDECO, Study of Evaluation
of Environmental Impacts in the Silala, Palynology, 2018. BR, Vol. 3, Annex 23.4. DHI,
Technical Analysis and Independent Validation Opinion of Supplementary Technical Studies
Concerning the Silala Springs, December 2018. BR, Vol. 2, Annex 23.
133 The calculations of the surface of the wetland cited by the Ramsar Report, of 0.6 Ha coincide
with the results of the FUNDECO study that calculates the current area of the bofedals in 0.7
Ha based on satellite images and field botanical studies. FUNDECO, Study of Evaluation of
Environmental Impacts in the Silala, 2018, p. 6. BR, Vol. 3, Annex 23.3. DHI, Technical
Analysis and Independent Validation Opinion of Supplementary Technical Studies Concerning
the Silala Springs, December 2018. BR, Vol. 2, Annex 23.
134 “Of the 10 fragments evaluated, five are strongly degraded, one is in a degraded state, three
sites are in a regular state and only one fragment arrived in good conditions [...], but still its
quality is very low”. FUNDECO, Study of Evaluation of Environmental Impacts in the Silala,
2018, p. 87. BR, Vol. 3, Annex 23.3. DHI, Technical Analysis and Independent Validation
Opinion of Supplementary Technical Studies Concerning the Silala Springs, December 2018.
135 FUNDECO, Study of Evaluation of Environmental Impacts in the Silala, 2018, p. 102. BR,
Vol. 3, Annex 23.3. DHI, Technical Analysis and Independent Validation Opinion of
Supplementary Technical Studies Concerning the Silala Springs, December 2018.
48
can be affirmed that 107,137 m2 (10.7 hectares) of bofedal have been
lost due to the canalization”136.
91. The FUNDECO study highlights the impacts of the canalization on the Silala
bofedals and distinguishes the areas of study in three bofedals: North Bofedal,
South Bofedal and Confluence Bofedal. The South Bofedal is the most
degraded and fragmented.137
Figure 8: Types of Vegetation in the South Wetland.138
136 FUNDECO, Study of Evaluation of Environmental Impacts in the Silala, 2018, p. 55. BR, Vol.
3, Annex 23.3. DHI, Technical Analysis and Independent Validation Opinion of
Supplementary Technical Studies Concerning the Silala Springs, December 2018.
137 FUNDECO, Study of Evaluation of Environmental Impacts in the Silala, 2018, p. 12. BR, Vol.
3, Annex 23.3. DHI, Technical Analysis and Independent Validation Opinion of
Supplementary Technical Studies Concerning the Silala Springs, December 2018.
138 Image 2, Appendix C, p. 51. BR, Vol. 6, Annex 29. See also FUNDECO, Study of Evaluation
of Environmental Impacts in the Silala, 2018, p. 13. BR, Vol. 3, Annex 23.3. DHI, Technical
Analysis and Independent Validation Opinion of Supplementary Technical Studies Concerning
Silala Springs, December 2018. BR, Vol. 2, Annex 23.
Types of vegetation: South Wetland
;
~ Dra inage network t
Types of vegetation
Ba re soil / saline outcrop
Grass
-Scrubland A Acuatic vegetation
Prairie
1:5.000
' Fragmented wetland
t -Wetland scrub 0 12.5 250 375 500 - ' Wet land
Meuos t
...... ... .... ... ...
49
92. The North Bofedal has also been drained. Areas with predominance of
bofedal-characteristic species have been identified, but also areas with
alterations of open canals.139
Figure 9: Types of Vegetation in the North Wetland. 140
139 FUNDECO, Study of Evaluation of Environmental Impacts in the Silala, 2018, p. 6. BR, Vol.
3, Annex 23.3. DHI, Technical Analysis and Independent Validation Opinion of
Supplementary Technical Studies Concerning Silala Springs, December 2018. BR, Vol. 2,
Annex 23.
140 Image 1, Appendix C, p. 50. BR, Vol. 6, Annex 29. FUNDECO, Study of Evaluation of
Environmental Impacts in the Silala, 2018, p. 14. BR, Vol. 3, Annex 23.3. DHI, Technical
Analysis and Independent Validation Opinion of Supplementary Technical Studies Concerning
Silala Springs, December 2018. BR, Vol. 2, Annex 23.
0 40
.. ,,....
Types of Vegetation: North Wetland
1:2.000
80
MIIIOS
120 160
Legend
_J Drainage network
Types of vegetation
Bare soil / saline outcrop
Grass
Scrubland
Acuatic vegetation
Prairie
Fragmented wetland
M Wetland scrub
M Wetland
50
93. The Confluence Bofedal is significantly degraded. A mixture of grasses with
a reduced number of species common to bofedals have been found.141
Figure 10: Types of Vegetation in the Confluence Bofedal.142
94. The scientific evidence shows that the hydraulic works generated the
fragmentation of the bofedals. This resulted in the reduction of the potential
area of typical bofedal species and increased soil compaction that reduces the
141 FUNDECO, Study of Evaluation of Environmental Impacts in the Silala, 2018, p. 6. BR, Vol.
3, Annex 23.3. DHI, Technical Analysis and Independent Validation Opinion of
Supplementary Technical Studies Concerning Silala Springs, December 2018. BR, Vol. 2,
Annex 23.
142 Image 3, Appendix C, p. 52. BR, Vol. 6, Annex 29. See also FUNDECO, Study of Evaluation
of Environmental Impacts in the Silala, 2018, p. 15. BR, Vol. 3, Annex 23.3. DHI, Technical
Analysis and Independent Validation Opinion of Supplementary Technical Studies Concerning
Silala Springs, December 2018. BR, Vol. 2, Annex 23.
A
Types of Vegetation: Confluence Wetland
120 160
Legend
[J Drainage network
Types of vegetation
Ba re soil / saline outcrop
Grass
Scrubland
M Acuatic vegetation
Prairie
Fragmented wetland
M Wetland sc rub
M Wetland
.. , ....
51
capacity of water retention.143 Also, the hydraulic works drastically
homogenized the aquatic habitat, reducing the number of groups of macroinvertebrates
that typically inhabit such bofedals.144 The drainage
mechanisms and canalization works continuously collected the water that the
Silala bofedals naturally irrigated, modifying the natural hydrological
conditions of the area, causing the desiccation of soils and changes in
vegetation. The process of invasion of scrubland and meadow species is a
result of this draining process.145 The Silala bofedals require restoration
measures to recover their biodiversity, general physiognomic aspect, and ecosystemic
functions.146
95. The Ramsar Convention, to which both States are Party, promotes
coordination among states for the conservation of wetlands, which translates
into the cooperation that must exist between States. The conservation and
restoration of the Silala wetlands, located in Bolivian territory, entails the
cooperation that must exist between Bolivia and Chile. Within the framework
of Ramsar regulations, it has been established that:
143 FUNDECO, Study of Evaluation of Environmental Impacts in the Silala, 2018, p. 104. BR,
Vol. 3, Annex 23.3. DHI, Technical Analysis and Independent Validation Opinion of
Supplementary Technical Studies Concerning the Silala Springs, December 2018. BR, Vol. 2,
Annex 23.
144 FUNDECO, Study of Evaluation of Environmental Impacts in the Silala, 2018, p. 104. BR,
Vol. 3, Annex 23.3. DHI, Technical Analysis and Independent Validation Opinion of
Supplementary Technical Studies Concerning the Silala Springs, December 2018. BR, Vol. 2,
Annex 23.
145 FUNDECO, Study of Evaluation of Environmental Impacts in the Silala, 2018, p. 55. BR, Vol.
3, Annex 23.3. DHI, Technical Analysis and Independent Validation Opinion of
Supplementary Technical Studies Concerning the Silala Springs, December 2018. BR, Vol. 2,
Annex 23.
146 FUNDECO, Study of Evaluation of Environmental Impacts in the Silala, 2018, p. 102. BR,
Vol. 3, Annex 23.3. DHI, Technical Analysis and Independent Validation Opinion of
Supplementary Technical Studies Concerning the Silala Springs, December 2018. BR, Vol. 2,
Annex 23.
52
“[...] the Convention has recognized and responded to the need to
manage wetlands as part of river basins, so has the interpretation
of international cooperation been expanded to include those situations
where a wetland in one Contracting Party is within the water catchment
of another Contracting Party and where the actions of the Contracting
Parties within the catchment area may result in changes to the
ecological character of the wetland”. 147
96. Given that the Bolivian wetlands of Silala (the North and South Bofedals) are
located in the transboundary ravine of Silala, international cooperation should
prevail to pursue preservation and restoration as mutual benefit guiding the
relations between the two States, as they already did in the past.
2.2. The Need to Return to Cooperation and Agreed Formulas of Mutual
Benefit
97. In 2001, Chile’s Foreign Minister, Soledad Alvear, stated that the Ministry of
Foreign Affairs of her country proposed working with a practical agenda that
ensures financial benefits for Bolivia.148 This intention was reflected in the
Minutes of the Eighteenth Meeting of the Bolivia-Chile Political Consultation
Mechanism, where the Parties agreed that “in the next 60 days, the contents
will be exchanged for an immediate basic agreement, that takes into account
the water resource in its existing uses, the rights of each country, and the
means of use in order to generate economic benefits for Bolivia.”149
147 International Cooperation: Guidelines and other support for international cooperation under
the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands, Handbook 20, Ramsar Handbooks, 4th ed., p.10.
Available at https://bit.ly/2PPLdYj ; See also Article 5 of the Convention on Wetlands of
International Importance especially as Waterfowl Habitat, Ramsar, Iran, 2 February 1971.
147 CM, para. 2.22.
148 El Mercurio, The Foreign Minister Opts for Integration, Santiago, 21 October 2001. BR, Vol.
2, Annex 21.
149 Minutes of the XVIII Meeting of the Bolivia-Chile Political Consultation Mechanism, 17 June
2008. BCM, Vol. 2, Annex 6.
53
98. In 2008, during the diplomatic negotiations within the framework of the
Bolivia-Chile Working Group on the Silala Issue, Chile and Bolivia agreed:
a) that joint technical studies should produce results acceptable to both
Parties150, b) that the waters would be exploited for “mutual benefit”151, and
c) to find a satisfactory framework for both countries.152
99. In the Initial Agreement on Silala Draft presented by the Parties in July 2009,
Bolivia and Chile agreed on a modality of use of the Silala waters, focused
on the mutual benefit that both States should enjoy. This preliminary
agreement determined that: a) The use of Silala waters freely available to
Bolivia, captured in its territory and transported to Chile, had to be
compensated to Bolivia by Chilean legal entities; b) a percentage (50%) of
the Silala surface water corresponds to Bolivia and is freely available and that
this percentage can be increased on the basis of future studies, and c) Bolivia
must give its authorization for its freely available waters to be used in Chilean
territory and any dispute that may arise between the Chilean legal entity and
Bolivia must be resolved in accordance with Bolivian regulations and before
Bolivian authorities.153
150 Minutes of the IV Meeting of the Bolivia-Chile Working Group on the Silala Issue, 14
November 2008. BCM, Vol. 2, Annex 7.
151 Minutes of the XIV Meeting of the Bolivia-Chile Political Consultation Mechanism, 5 and 6
October 2005. BR, Vol. 2, Annex 19.
152 Minutes of the XIV Meeting of the Bolivia-Chile Political Consultation Mechanism, 5 and 6
October 2005. BR, Vol. 2, Annex 19. Minutes of the Second Meeting of the Mechanism for
Political Consultations Bolivia Chile on the Silala Issue, 17 July 2006. CM, Vol. 2, Annex 22.
153 Initial Agreement [Silala or Siloli], Agreed Draft, 28 July 2009. BCM, Vol. 2, Annex 8.
54
FINAL CONCLUSIONS
100. If Bolivia were to remove the drainage mechanisms and the artificial
channels, and upon the disappearance of the artificial component of the
watercourse, there would no longer be any dispute between the Parties on
Bolivia’s Counter-Claims b) and c). These Counter-Claims only refer to the
artificial flow of Silala waters engineered, enhanced, or produced in its
territory. Contrary to Chile’s assertion, Counter-Claim c) relates to the
conclusion of an agreement between the parties on the conditions and
modalities of future delivery of artificially-flowing Silala waters from Bolivia
to Chile. An agreement would no longer be necessary if the canals are
dismantled.
101. In its Reply, Chile recognizes that the dispute “has been very significantly
reduced as compared to when Chile decided to lodge its Application in June
2016”154. Chile’s acknowledgment concerns the totality of the dispute, and
therefore cannot be assessed in isolation from the merits of the case.
102. Chile fully agrees with Bolivia’s Counter-Claim a) and submits that there is
no longer a dispute between the Parties on this issue, and asks the Court to
adjudge and declare that “(a) [t]he Court lacks jurisdiction over Bolivia’s
Counter-Claim a), alternatively, Bolivia’s Counter-Claim a) is moot, or is
otherwise rejected”. In principle, and as explained in this Rejoinder, Bolivia
welcomes Chile’s recognition of Bolivia’s rights, however, and to the extent
that its meaning in the particular circumstances of the case remains unclear,
the Court is not in a position to accept Chile’s request.
154 CR, paras. 1.3 and 1.16.
55
103. For its part, Bolivia recognizes that, once the artificial channels and drainage
mechanisms in Bolivian territory are removed, the Silala waters will be
entirely governed by customary international law applicable to international
watercourses.155 This, in turn, will lead to a further reduction of Chile’s
Submissions and the main dispute as originally instituted by Chile in 2016.
These new circumstances could render any pronouncement by the Court no
longer necessary.
155 BCM, paras.14 and 79.
56
SUBMISSIONS
With respect to the Counter-Claims presented by the Plurinational State of
Bolivia, Bolivia requests the Court to adjudge and declare that:
a) Bolivia has sovereignty over the artificial channels and drainage mechanisms
in the Silala that are located in its territory and has the right to decide whether
and how to maintain them;
b) Bolivia has sovereignty over the artificial flow of Silala waters engineered,
enhanced, or produced in its territory and Chile has no right to that artificial
flow;
c) Any delivery from Bolivia to Chile of artificially-flowing waters of the Silala,
and the conditions and modalities thereof, including the compensation to be
paid for said delivery, are subject to the conclusion of an agreement with
Bolivia.
The Hague, 15 May 2019
Eduardo RODRÍGUEZ VELTZÉ
Agent of the Plurinational State of Bolivia
57
LIST OF ANNEXES TO THE REJOINDER
OF THE PLURINATIONAL STATE OF BOLIVIA
VOLUME 2 OF 6
ANNEX
N°
TITLE PAGE
N°
(ANNEXES 19-23.2)
DOCUMENTATION FROM THE BOLIVIA-CHILE POLITICAL
CONSULTATION MECHANISM (ANNEX 19)
Annex 19 Minutes of the XIV Meeting of the Bolivia-Chile Political
Consultation Mechanism, 5 and 6 October 2005
(Original in Spanish, English Translation)
5
CHILEAN OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS (ANNEX 20)
Annex 20 Records of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile, 2009
(Original in Spanish, English Translation)
31
PRESS ARTICLES (ANNEX 21)
Annex 21 El Mercurio, “The Foreign Minister opts for integration”,
Santiago, 21 October 2001.
(Original in Spanish, English Translation)
39
TECHNICAL DOCUMENTS (ANNEXES 22 – 23.2)
Annex 22 R. Gomez-Garcia Palao, “Transboundary water resources between
the Republics of Bolivia and Chile – Silala”, April 1997
(English Translation)
47
Annex 23 DHI, “Technical Analysis and Independent Validation Opinion of
Supplementary Technical studies concerning the Silala Springs”,
December 2018
(Original in English)
65
58
Annex
23.1
IHH, “Characterization and Efficiency of the Hydraulic Works
built and installed in the Silala Sector”, April 2018
(English Translation)
123
Annex
23.2
C. Barrón, “Study of Georeferencing, Topographic survey and
determination of the infiltration capacity in the event of possible
surface runoff in the area of the Silala springs”, May 2018
(English Translation)
299
Data DVD DVD-ROM containing supporting data Annexes from:
“Georeferencing, Topographic survey and determination of the
infiltration capacity in the event of possible surface runoff in the
area of the Silala springs”
389
59
LIST OF ANNEXES TO THE REJOINDER
OF THE PLURINATIONAL STATE OF BOLIVIA
VOLUME 3 OF 6
ANNEX N°
TITLE PAGE N°
TECHNICAL DOCUMENTS (ANNEXES 23.3 – 23.5)
Annex 23.3 FUNDECO, “Study of Evaluation of Environmental
Impacts in the Silala”, May 2018
(English Translation)
5
Annex 23.4 FUNDECO, “Study of Evaluation of Environmental
Impacts in the Silala, Palynology”, 2018
(English Translation)
131
Annex 23.5 F. Urquidi, “Technical analysis of geological,
hydrological, hydrogeological and hydrochemical surveys
completed for the Silala water system”, June 2018
(English Translation)
233
Annex 23.5
Appendix a
SERGEOMIN (National Service of Geology and Mining),
Study of the Geology, Hydrology, Hydrogeology and
Environment of the Area of the Silala Springs, June 2000-
2001, Final Edition 2003
(English Translation)
333
60
LIST OF ANNEXES TO THE REJOINDER
OF THE PLURINATIONAL STATE OF BOLIVIA
VOLUME 4 OF 6
ANNEX N°
TITLE PAGE N°
TECHNICAL DOCUMENTS (ANNEX 23.5)
Annex 23.5
Appendix b
SERGEOMIN, “Structural Geological Mapping of the
Area Surrounding the Silala Springs”, September 2017
(English Translation)
5
Annex 23.5
Appendix c
Tomás Frías Autonomous University (TFAU),
“Hydrogeological Characterization of the Silala Springs”,
2018
(English Translation)
137
61
LIST OF ANNEXES TO THE REJOINDER
OF THE PLURINATIONAL STATE OF BOLIVIA
VOLUME 5 OF 6
ANNEX N°
TITLE PAGE N°
(ANNEXES 24-28)
TECHNICAL DOCUMENTS (ANNEX 24-26)
Annex 24 DHI, “Analysis and assessment of Chile’s reply to
Bolivia’s counter claims on the Silala Case”, March 2019
(Original in English)
5
Annex 25 DHI, “Updating of the mathematical hydrological model
scenarios of the Silala spring waters with: Sensitivity
analysis of the model boundaries”, April 2019
(Original in English)
47
Annex 26 FUNDECO, “Study of the Water Requirements of the
Silala Wetlands”, April 2019
(English Translation)
89
OTHER DOCUMENTS (ANNEXES 27-28)
Annex 27 Note S/N of The Antofagasta (Chili) and Bolivia Railway
P.L.C addressed to the Company DUCTEC S.R.L.,
Antofagasta, 23 August 2000
(Original in Spanish, English Translation)
155
Annex 28 1906 Chilean Concession to THE ANTOFAGASTACHILI
AND BOLIVIA RAILWAY P.L.C. Obtained from
the data base of Chile’s Direction-General of Water, 2019
http://www.dga.cl/Paginas/default.aspx
(Original in Spanish, English Translation)
159
62
LIST OF ANNEXES TO THE REJOINDER
OF THE PLURINATIONAL STATE OF BOLIVIA
VOLUME 6 OF 6
(ANNEXES 29-30)
CARTOGRAPHY OF THE WETLANDS OF THE SILALA
(ANNEX 29)
INFRASTRUCTURE LAYOUT PLANS AND DRONE FOOTAGE (Appendix A)
Plan 1 LOCATION PLAN 3
Plan 1.1 ORTHOMOSAIC UAV IMAGE OF THE SOUTH
WETLAND 01-16
4
Plan 1.2 LAYOUT PLAN AND PROFILE OF THE SOUTH
CANAL OF THE SILALA N° 01 - 16
5
Plan 1.3 ORTHOMOSAIC UAV IMAGE OF THE SOUTH
WETLAND 02-16
6
Plan 1.4 LAYOUT PLAN AND PROFILE OF THE SOUTH
CANAL OF THE SILALA N° 02 - 16
7
Plan 1.5 ORTHOMOSAIC UAV IMAGE OF THE SOUTH
WETLAND 03-16
8
Plan 1.6 LAYOUT PLAN AND PROFILE OF THE SOUTH
CANAL OF THE SILALA N° 03 - 16
9
Plan 1.7 ORTHOMOSAIC UAV IMAGE OF THE SOUTH
WETLAND 04-16
10
Plan 1.8 LAYOUT PLAN AND PROFILE OF THE SOUTH
CANAL OF THE SILALA N° 04 -16
11
Plan 1.9 ORTHOMOSAIC UAV IMAGE OF THE SOUTH
WETLAND 05-16
12
Plan 1.10 LAYOUT PLAN OF THE SOUTH CANAL OF THE
SILALA N° 05 - 16
13
Plan 1.11 ORTHOMOSAIC UAV IMAGE OF THE SOUTH
WETLAND 06-16
14
Plan 1.12 LAYOUT PLAN AND PROFILE OF THE SOUTH
CANAL OF THE SILALA N° 06 - 16
15
Plan 1.13 ORTHOMOSAIC UAV IMAGE OF THE SOUTH
WETLAND 07-16
16
63
Plan 1.14 LAYOUT PLAN AND PROFILE OF THE SOUTH
CANAL OF THE SILALA N° 07 - 16
17
Plan 1.15 ORTHOMOSAIC UAV IMAGE OF THE SOUTH
WETLAND 08-16
18
Plan 1.16 LAYOUT PLAN AND PROFILE OF THE SOUTH
CANAL OF THE SILALA N° 08 - 16
19
Plan 1.17 ORTHOMOSAIC UAV IMAGE OF THE SOUTH
WETLAND 09-16
20
Plan 1.18 LAYOUT PLAN AND PROFILE OF THE SOUTH
CANAL OF THE SILALA N° 09 - 16
21
Plan 1.19 ORTHOMOSAIC UAV IMAGE OF THE SOUTH
WETLAND 10-16
22
Plan 1.20 LAYOUT PLAN AND PROFILE OF THE SOUTH
CANAL OF THE SILALA N° 10 - 16
23
Plan 1.21 ORTHOMOSAIC UAV IMAGE OF THE CONFLUENCE
WETLAND 11-16
24
Plan 1.22 LAYOUT PLAN AND PROFILE OF THE MAIN CANAL
(CONFLUENCE REACH) OF THE SILALA N° 11 - 16
25
Plan 1.23 ORTHOMOSAIC UAV IMAGE OF THE MAIN CANAL
12-16
26
Plan 1.24 LAYOUT PLAN AND PROFILE OF THE MAIN CANAL
(CONFLUENCE REACH) OF THE SILALA N° 12 - 16
27
Plan 1.25 ORTHOMOSAIC UAV IMAGE OF THE MAIN CANAL
13-16
28
Plan 1.26 LAYOUT PLAN AND PROFILE OF THE MAIN CANAL
(CONFLUENCE REACH) OF THE SILALA N° 13 - 16
29
Plan 1.27 ORTHOMOSAIC UAV IMAGE OF THE NORTH
WETLAND 14-16
30
Plan 1.28 LAYOUT PLAN AND PROFILE OF THE NORTH
CANAL OF THE SILALA N° 14 - 16
31
Plan 1.29 ORTHOMOSAIC UAV IMAGE OF THE NORTH
WETLAND 15-16
32
Plan 1.30 LAYOUT PLAN AND PROFILE FOR THE NORTH
CANAL OF THE SILALA N° 15 - 16
33
Plan 1.31 ORTHOMOSAIC UAV IMAGE OF THE NORTH
WETLAND 16-16
34
Plan 1.32 LAYOUT PLAN AND PROFILE FOR THE NORTH
CANAL OF THE SILALA N° 16 - 16
35
Plan 2 SILALA WETLANDS LOCATION PLAN 36
Plan 3 CANAL TYPES CONSTRUCTED ON THE SILALA 37
Plan 4 SILALA CANALS DETAIL PLAN 38
64
GEOLOGICAL MAPS OF THE SILALA (Appendix B)
Map 1 GEOLOGICAL MAP AREA 1 40
Map 2 GEOLOGICAL MAP AREA 2 41
Map 3 GEOLOGICAL MAP AREA 3 42
Map 4 MAP OF FAULTS AND LINEAMENTS SURROUNDING
AREA OF THE SILALA SPRINGS
43
Map 5 SAMPLING MAP 44
Map 6 FAULT DISTRIBUTION MAP BY STATION 45
Map 7 DISTRIBUTION MAP OF JOINTS BY STATION 46
Map 8 MAP WITH ROSE DIAGRAMS AND JOINTS 47
Map 9 MAP WITH ROSE DIAGRAMS OF FAULTS 48
WETLANDS DEGRADATION IMAGES (Appendix C)
Image 1 TYPES OF VEGETATION IN THE NORTH WETLAND 50
Image 2 TYPES OF VEGETATION IN THE SOUTH WETLAND 51
Image 3 TYPES OF VEGETATION IN THE CONFLUENCE
WETLAND
52
DRONE VIDEO (ANNEX 30)
Annex 30
DATA DVD
DVD CONTAINING “ARTIFICIAL WORKS IMPACT ON
THE SILALA” (VIDEO)
53
65
CERTIFICATION
I have the honour to certify that this Rejoinder and the documents annexed in Volume 2-
6, are true copies and conform to the original documents and that the translations into English
made by the Plurinational State of Bolivia are accurate translations.
Eduardo RODRÍGUEZ VELTZÉ
Agent of the Plurinational State of Bolivia