Water diplomacy in the pursuit of water security: A multilevel approach

In a publication1 released during the 2024 World Water Week, IUCN has collated the lessons learned during 15 years of implementation of its Building River Dialogue and Governance (BRIDGE) transboundary water governance program.2 The BRIDGE program is designed to support effective forms of transboundary water governance—through reform of laws, policies, and institutions—and has evolved from a focus on nine basins in three regions in 2011 to 20 river basins in six regions today.3 Within BRIDGE, an approach to water diplomacy was developed that rests on the hypothesis that water governance capacity is built most effectively in a participatory and “multiscalar” process that is coordinated from local to national and transboundary levels. This is contrasted with a narrower interpretation of water diplomacy, as will be argued below. As a practitioners' approach that is nevertheless rooted in science and a thorough understanding of international water law, BRIDGE has honed a flexible and modular approach to water diplomacy and governance that is demand-driven and participatory and “joins the dots” between high-level (intergovernmental) and local (formal and informal) agreements. It does so by deploying a variety of building blocks—demonstration, dialog, advice and support, leadership, and learning—in response to the demands of the moment. This process leads to a “plurality of arrangements” that include formal intergovernmental treaties, but also include a wide variety of formal and informal agreements involving a wide range of stakeholders. Not stated explicitly but nevertheless crucially important, the approach breaks through an ingrained tendency in the literature to interpret “transboundary water governance” as pertaining to relations between states, whereas it also pertains to the water-related activities and administrative boundaries between subnational states, provinces, and municipalities. The experiences of this program illuminate some of the complexities embedded in the relationships between water security, water diplomacy, and water governance, revealing a kaleidoscope of different professional disciplines, scientific inputs, as well as legal policy and institutional processes that are required at different times in different contexts to achieve the same overall results across different basins. According to Vörörsmarty et al. (2021), recent studies in water security reveal globally significant threats from population and economic growth, mismanaged water use, climate extremes, and a general failure to effectively protect landscapes and inland waterways. Similarly, Sadoff (2018) notes that without significant improvement in water management, we can no longer assure sustainable development in the face of climate change and related pressures. Water crises are in fact the single most worrying issue on the minds of leaders surveyed by the World Economic Forum (Sadoff, 2018). These concerns are anything but new: in 2010, research into “peak water” presented the specter of a resource constrained future with real limits to freshwater availability withdrawals, while a 1996 assessment concluded that humans already appropriate over 50% of all renewable and “accessible” freshwater flows, including water needed for in-stream dilution of human and industrial wastes (Gleick and Palanippan, 2010). To a large extent, these observations underlie the efforts to implement effective forms of water governance with the aim of achieving water security for people, the economy, and the environment. As discussed by Ahopelto et al. (2024), the concept of water security is becoming an increasingly dominant concept in water resources management. An often-referenced definition of water security argues that water security can be understood as “sustainable access to safe quality water while protecting against water related hazards for people, the economy and environment” (Sadoff et al. 2020). Critically, in the book from which this definition originates, Sadoff et al. also argue that water security can even be seen as the ultimate aim of water governance. Another often cited definition of water security by UN Water describes water security as “the capacity of a population to safeguard sustainable access to adequate quantities of acceptable quality for sustaining livelihoods, human well-being and socioeconomic development, for ensuring protection against waterborne pollution and water related diseases, and for preserving ecosystems in a climate of peace and political stability” (UN Water, 2013). The latter definition is perhaps better aligned to key concepts in international law, and in particular to the contents of the human right to water. If, as Sadoff et al. has argued, the ultimate aim of water governance is to achieve water security, it is of critical importance to identify effective forms of water diplomacy and governance that may be applied towards this aim (Sadoff et al., 2020). This is all the more critical in the light of current threats to water security. In pursuit of water security, countries have opted to institutionalize cooperation in transboundary river basins through freshwater agreements, which are assumed to become a means for strengthening cooperation and preventing the re-emergence of conflict. However, in many cases, such agreements are based on an approach to water diplomacy that is narrowly focused on high-level dialog between governments—such as at the ministerial level or between Departments of Foreign Affairs—with the objective of putting a formal agreement (treaty) in place. This approach leaves out informal intergovernmental processes as well as both formal and informal subnational processes between countries. The BRIDGE program provides a more comprehensive and holistic approach: although it is recognized that water diplomacy takes place under the authority of sovereign states, it is argued that if agreements are to work on the ground, they also need the agreement of water users themselves. Therefore, to ensure effective governance, many different kinds of agreements are needed: a “plurality of arrangements” that do include formal intergovernmental treaties but also include a wide variety of formal and informal arrangements involving a wide range of stakeholders: local communities, municipal governments, technical agencies, economic sectors, and representatives of different categories of water users. This requires an altogether different approach to water diplomacy. Achieving a multiplicity of arrangements is complex and requires long-term presence and engagement. BRIDGE has often worked as the facilitator or broker of this coordination, taking advantage of IUCN's neutrality and convening ability as well as the network of its members and partners to bridge government and civil society and field activities with policy processes. Often this takes place by opening less formal spaces for dialogue through which conversations between different institutional levels can begin to take place and by contributing to technical expertise to shepherd cooperation in a flexible and demand-driven way. The catalysts for reform are different across the different regions and river basins: in one region this may start with the strengthening of water information systems, in another it may start with capacity building on international water law, undertaking baseline studies on a river basin, or other technical issues. This requires a multiscalar approach to water diplomacy. Since the 1990's, an increasing number of researchers have highlighted a variety of threats to water security. These observations underlie current efforts to implement effective forms of water governance with the aim of achieving water security for people, the economy, and the environment. Building on an argument by Sadoff et al. (2020) that water security may be seen as the ultimate aim of water governance, it can be argued that supporting effective forms of water governance is critical to the reduction of these threats. In this context, it is interesting to note that IUCN's BRIDGE program, which has developed a flexible and modular approach to support for water diplomacy and governance, is well aligned to interpretations of “effectiveness.” Taken together with the interpretation of water diplomacy as a “multiscalar” process aimed at achieving a plurality of agreements, this offers a promising perspective for research that probes deeper into operational mechanisms for water diplomacy at different institutional levels, across different institutional boundaries, in the pursuit of greater water security. Tobias Schmitz The Water Diplomat 在2024年“世界水周”(World Water Week)期间发表的一份出版物中, 世界自然保护联盟 (IUCN)整理了其“建设河流对话与治理”(BRIDGE)跨边界水治理计划实施15年来的经验。BRIDGE计划旨在通过法律、政策和制度改革来支持有效的跨边界水治理形式, 并且已从2011年三个地区的九个流域发展到今天六个地区的二十个流域。. 在BRIDGE计划内提出了一种水外交方法, 该方法基于以下假设:从地方、国家、跨边界层面加以协调的参与式和“多尺度”过程最能有效建立水治理能力。这与对水外交的狭义解释形成对比, 如下文所述。. 作为一种实践者方法, BRIDGE植根于科学和对国际水法的透彻理解, 它已经磨练出一种灵活、模块化的水外交和治理方法, 该方法以需求为导向、具备参与性, 并将高层 (政府间)和地方 (正式和非正式)协议“连接起来”。它通过部署不同构建模块 (示范、对话、建议和支持、领导和学习)来响应当下的需求。这一过程导致了“多种安排”, 其中包括正式的政府间条约, 但也包括涉及广泛利益攸关方的各种正式和非正式协议。这种方法没有明确说明但至关重要的是, 它突破了文献中根深蒂固的倾向 (即将“跨边界水治理”解释为与国家间关系有关), 而它也涉及地方、省和市之间与水有关的活动与边界。. 该计划的经历阐明了水安全、水外交和水治理之间关系的复杂性, 揭示了不同专业学科、科学投入以及法律政策和制度过程的万花筒, 这些都需要在不同时期和不同情境下进行, 以期在不同流域实现相同的总体结果。. 根据Vörösmarty等人(2021)的研究, 关于水安全的近期研究揭示了全球范围内的重大威胁, 这些威胁源于人口和经济增长、水资源管理不善、极端气候、以及未能有效保护景观和内陆水道。同样, Sadoff (2018)指出, 如果水管理没有得到显著改善, 我们就无法在气候变化和相关压力下确保可持续发展。事实上, 水危机是世界经济论坛所调查的领导人最担心的问题。. 这些担忧并不新鲜:2010年, 关于“峰值水”的研究提出了一个担忧, 即资源受限的未来, 其中淡水可用量提取存在实际限制, 而1996年的一项评估得出结论, 即人类已经占用了所有可再生和“可获得”的淡水流量的50%以上, 包括人类和工业废物在河道内稀释所需的水。. 在很大程度上, 这些观察结果为实施有效的水治理形式提供了基础, 目的是为人类、经济和环境实现水安全。正如Ahopelto等人所讨论的, 水安全的概念正成为水资源管理中日益主导的概念。一个经常被引用的水安全定义认为, 水安全可以理解为“可持续地获得安全优质的水, 同时保护人类、经济和环境免受与水有关的危害”。至关重要的是, 在提出该定义的书中, Sadoff等人还认为, 水安全甚至可以看作是水治理的最终目标。. 由联合国水机制提出另一个经常被引用的水安全定义将水安全描述为“人口为保障可持续获得足够数量的、质量过关的水的能力, 用于维持生计、人类福祉和社会经济发展, 确保免受水污染和与水有关的疾病, 并在和平与政治稳定的气候下保护生态系统”。后一种定义也许更符合国际法中的关键概念, 特别是人类的水权利内容。. 如果如Sadoff所说, 水治理的最终目标是实现水安全, 那么识别可用于实现这一目标的有效水外交和治理形式就至关重要。鉴于目前水安全面临的威胁, 这一点尤为重要。. 为了实现水安全, 各国选择通过淡水协议将跨边界河流流域的合作制度化, 这些协议被认为是加强合作和防止冲突再次爆发的一种手段。然而, 在许多情况下, 此类协议是基于一种水外交方法, 后者只侧重于政府间高层对话——例如部长级对话或外交部之间的对话, 目的是达成正式协议 (条约)。这种方法忽略了非正式的政府间过程以及国家间正式和非正式的地方过程。. BRIDGE计划提供了一种更全面、更整体的方法:尽管人们认识到水外交是在主权国家的权力下进行的, 但有人认为, 如果协议要在实地发挥作用, 它们也需要水用户本身的同意。. 因此, 为了确保有效的治理, 需要多种不同类型的协议:一种“多方面安排”, 其中包括正式的政府间条约, 但也包括涉及广泛利益攸关方的各种正式和非正式安排, 利益攸关方包括当地社区、市政府、技术机构、经济部门和不同类别的水用户代表。这需要一种完全不同的水外交方法。. 实现多种安排一事十分复杂, 需要长期的参与和接触。BRIDGE经常充当这种协调的推动者或经纪人, 利用IUCN的中立性和召集能力以及其成员和合作伙伴网络, 在政府和公民社会之间架起桥梁, 并将实地活动与政策过程联系起来。这通常通过开放非正式的对话空间来实现, 通过这些空间, 不同制度层面之间的对话能开始进行, 并通过贡献技术专长、以灵活和需求驱动的方式引导合作。. 不同地区和流域的改革催化剂各不相同:在一个地区, 改革可能从加强水信息系统开始, 在另一个地区, 改革可能从国际水法或其他技术问题的能力建设开始。这需要采取多尺度的水外交方法, 如图1所示。. 自20世纪90年代以来, 越来越多的研究人员强调了水安全面临的不同威胁。这些观察结果为“用于实施有效水治理形式”的当前举措奠定了基础, 旨在为人民、经济和环境实现水安全。基于Sadoff等人提出的“水安全可以看作是水治理的最终目标”这一观点, 可以说, 支持有效的水治理形式对于减少这些威胁至关重要。. 在此情境下, 值得注意的是, IUCN的BRIDGE计划已经开发出一种灵活和模块化的方法来支持水外交和治理, 这与“有效性”的解释非常吻合。结合将水外交解释为旨在达成多项协议的“多尺度”过程, 这为深入探讨不同制度层面、跨越不同制度边界的水外交运作机制以追求更大的水安全的研究提供了一个有希望的视角。. Gleick, P and Palanippan, M (2010): Peak water limits to freshwater withdrawal and use. In: PNAS 107 (25) 11155–11162. A. Iza and R. Stein (Eds.). (2009). RULE – Reforming water governance. : IUCN. IUCN. (2000): Vision for water and nature. A world strategy for conservation and sustainable management of water resources in the 21st century. IUCN Gland, . Lauri Ahopelto, Suvi Sojamo, Antti Belinskij, Niko Soininen & Marko Keskinen (2024): Water governance for water security: Analyzing institutional strengths and challenges in Finland, International Journal of Water Resources Development 4:2, 153–173. McCracken. (2022): Defining effective transboundary cooperation. : Routledge. OECD. (2011), Water governance in OECD countries: A multi-level approach, OECD studies on water, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264119284-en. Postel, S, Daily, G, Ehrlich, P (1996): Human appropriation of renewable fresh water. In: Science 271, 785–788. Sadoff, C. and Grey, D (2005): Cooperation on international Rivers: A continuum for securing and sharing benefits. In: Water International 30(4): 420–427. Sadoff, C. (2018): Coming to grips with water security in the face of climate change. In: UN Chronicle Vol. 55 Issue 1, March 2018. Sadoff, C, Grey, D, & Borgomea, E (2020): Water security. Oxford University Pess. Smith, M., and Cartin, M. (2011). Water vision to action: Catalyzing change through the IUCN water and nature initiative. : IUCN. viii plus 55 pp. Turgull, A, McCracken, M, Schmeier, S., Rosenblum, Z, Silva, L, Worl, A (2024): Reflections on transboundary conflict and cooperation trends. In Water International vol. 49 issues 3–4, pp. 274–288. OECD. (2015): OECD principles on water governance. UN Water. (2013): Water security and the global agenda. A UN Water Analytical Brief. Vörörsmarty, C, Stewart-Koster, B, Green, P, Boone, E, Flörke, M, Fischer, G, Wiberg, D., Bunne, S, Bhaduri, A, McIntyre, P, Sadoff, C, Liu, H, Tifel, D (2021): A green-gray path to global water security and sustainable infrastructure. In: Global Environmental Change 70, 102344. Tobias Schmitz The Water Diplomat En un textox publicado durante la Semana Mundial del Agua 2024, la UICN ha recopilado las lecciones aprendidas durante 15 años de implementación de su programa de gobernanza hídrica transfronteriza Construyendo diálogo y gobernanza fluvial (BRIDGE).xi El programa BRIDGE está diseñado para apoyar formas efectivas de gobernanza del agua transfronteriza –a través de la reforma de leyes, políticas e instituciones– y ha evolucionado desde un enfoque en nueve cuencas en tres regiones en 2011 a veinte cuencas fluviales en seis regiones en la actualidad.xii En el marco de BRIDGE, se desarrolló un enfoque de la diplomacia del agua que se basa en la hipótesis de que la capacidad de gobernanza del agua se construye de manera en un y que se desde el local el y de la diplomacia del se enfoque de se basa en la y en un del del BRIDGE ha un enfoque flexible y modular para la diplomacia y la gobernanza del agua que está la y y de y e el de de y y en a las del a de que de e que a de no se de el enfoque en la a la del agua a las que a las el agua y y de programa de las a las la la diplomacia del agua y la gobernanza del y un de políticas y que se en y en para en et al. (2021), hídrica del y la del del y general para y las manera Sadoff (2018) que en la del no un y las del agua de el en la de el no en 2010, la el del el de un y a las de de agua que de 1996 que se de del 50% de de agua y el agua para la en de agua de e En formas de gobernanza del agua el de la hídrica para las la y el Ahopelto et al., el de hídrica se está en un en la de de hídrica a la que se que a agua y de a las la y el de el manera en el del se Sadoff et al. que la hídrica el de la gobernanza del de hídrica que se la hídrica capacidad de de el a de para de el y el para la la el agua y las el y para en un de y se a del en del ha Sadoff, el de la gobernanza del agua la de formas de diplomacia y gobernanza del agua que para a la de las a la En de la la en las cuencas fluviales agua que se que se en un para la y el de en se en un enfoque de la diplomacia hídrica que se en el diálogo de a ministerial de el de un formal enfoque de e El programa BRIDGE un enfoque y se que la diplomacia del agua se a la de se que para que el el de del para gobernanza se de de que de e que a de y de de del un enfoque de la diplomacia del de y y a BRIDGE ha a de la y la capacidad de de la la de y para el y la y las de y de de A se a de diálogo a través de a y para la de manera flexible y en de la de la reforma en las regiones y cuencas en el de de el en el de en de del agua un enfoque de la diplomacia del se en la la de un de ha a la formas efectivas de gobernanza del agua el de la hídrica para las la y el en un de Sadoff et al. de que la hídrica el de la gobernanza del se que el a formas efectivas de gobernanza del agua En que el programa BRIDGE de la que ha un enfoque flexible y modular para apoyar la diplomacia y la gobernanza del está en las de la En la de la diplomacia del agua un a de para la que en de la diplomacia del agua en a través de en de Gleick, P and Palanippan, M (2010): Peak water limits to freshwater withdrawal and use. In: PNAS 107 (25) 11155–11162. A. Iza and R. Stein (Eds.). (2009). RULE – Reforming water governance. : IUCN. IUCN. (2000): Vision for water and nature. A world strategy for conservation and sustainable of Water Resources in the 21st century. IUCN Gland, . Lauri Ahopelto, Suvi Sojamo, Antti Belinskij, Niko Soininen & Marko Keskinen (2024): Water governance for water security: Analyzing institutional strengths and challenges in Finland, International Journal of Water Resources Development 4:2, 153–173. McCracken. (2022): Defining effective transboundary cooperation. : Routledge. OECD. (2011), Water governance in OECD countries: A multi-level approach, OECD studies on water, OECD Publishing, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264119284-en. Postel, S, Daily, G, Ehrlich, P (1996): Human appropriation of renewable fresh water. In: Science 271, 785–788. Sadoff, C. and Grey, D (2005): Cooperation on international Rivers: A continuum for securing and sharing benefits. In: Water International 30(4): 420–427. Sadoff, C. (2018): Coming to grips with Water in the face of climate change. In: UN Vol. 55 Issue 1, March 2018. Sadoff, C, Grey, D, & Borgomea, E (2020): Water security. Oxford University Pess. Smith, M., and Cartin, M. (2011). Water vision to action: Catalyzing change through the IUCN water and nature initiative. : IUCN. viii plus 55 pp. Turgull, A, McCracken, M, Schmeier, S., Rosenblum, Z, Silva, L, Worl, A (2024): Reflections on transboundary conflict and cooperation trends. In Water International vol. 49 issues 3–4, pp. 274–288. OECD. (2015): OECD principles on water governance. UN Water. (2013): Water security and the global agenda. A UN Water Analytical Brief. Vörörsmarty, C, Stewart-Koster, B, Green, P, Boone, E, Flörke, M., Fischer, G, Wiberg, D., Bunne, S, Bhaduri, A, McIntyre, P, Sadoff, C, Liu, H, Tifel, D (2021): A path to global water security and sustainable infrastructure. In: Global Environmental Change 70, 102344.