In recent decades, the international system has undergone profound changes—especially in terms of the types of threats that destabilize international peace and security. As new threats emerge, a focus on new dimensions of the concept of security is now reaching the top of the international agenda. In this context, the global freshwater crisis is beginning to be perceived as an existential threat to states requiring extraordinary measures to alleviate or solve the problem.

Water is an essential element in achieving the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), as well as for the health and prosperity of people and countries. But progress on water-related goals and targets remains alarmingly off track, thus jeopardizing the entire sustainable development agenda. As these two currents converge, the relevance of water security is being more readily adopted by policymakers and applied to public entities and policy makers. (Indeed, it is now quite common to find departments of “water security.”)

It is one thing to define the issue. But what should water security look like in the coming decades? One of the most popular definitions remains the formulation proposed by Claudia Sadoff and Mike Muller in 2010: “the reliable provision of quantitatively and qualitatively acceptable water for health, production of goods and services, and livelihoods, together with an acceptable level of water-related risks.”

The United Nations Response to the Water Security Crisis

Water’s importance in sustainable development efforts has prompted the General Assembly to convene the forthcoming United Nations Conference on the “Midterm Comprehensive Review of the Implementation of the Objectives of the International Decade for Action, ‘Water for Sustainable Development’, 2018–2028,” in New York on March 22, 2023.

The conference will host five interactive dialogues focusing on the links between water and the following key issues: health; sustainable development; climate, resilience, and environment; cooperation; and the Water Action Decade. These conversations on water cooperation will necessarily have a high transboundary cooperation dimension, since it is at this level of governance that the greatest obstacles to achieving water cooperation exist.

Transboundary cooperation refers to surface waters or groundwater basins (aquifers) that cross or are located on the borders between two or more states, in accordance with the Convention on the Protection and Use of Transboundary Watercourses and International Lakes (1992) and the Convention on the Law of the Non-Navigational Uses of International Watercourses (New York, 1997). Thus, accelerating the actions of governments to meet the challenges in the management of transboundary river basins is an essential step in moving to solve them with the required urgency.

Among the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) that will be discussed at the UN, SDG 6—which aims to achieve clean water and sanitation for all—will certainly be high on the agenda. One of the key elements in reaching this goal will be better implementation of integrated water resources management at all levels, including through transboundary cooperation.

The indicators as to whether this target is being reached include both the degree of implementation of integrated water resources management (SDG 6.5.1) as well as the proportion of the area of transboundary basins with an operational arrangement for water cooperation (SDG 6.5.2). The two UN agencies that are working on SDG 6.5.2 are UNESCO and UNECE—the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe.

Why Institutions Matter

The emphasis placed in SDG 6.5.2 on the existence of a joint body or institutional mechanism is not misplaced. In an anarchic system, institutions offer a certain capacity for effective governance. The proliferation of such institutions over the past few decades shows that there is some degree of confidence in their usefulness. This aspect has also been evidenced in the study of institutions in transboundary basins.

When discussing key issues in transboundary river basins, it is important to see both the qualitative and quantitative dimensions. The question of quality is very much related to water allocation. In some scenarios, there is not enough water, making it challenging to allocate water resources fairly and sustainably. It is also clear that water quality from upstream sources can have downstream impacts, and this is often a source of tension among states.

However, the case of water management in Latin America also demonstrates that a lack of institutional capacity remains one of the main problems that transboundary river basins face. This lack of capacity is part of why it can be challenging to achieve the goals of SDG 6.5.2 in practice.

For instance, one critical issue faced when building institutions is data and information sharing. Often, data sharing among stakeholders in transboundary river basins is limited, which hinders effective decision-making. Yet such information sharing is especially critical when it comes to transboundary aquifers. For instance, the Latin American report for SDG 6 stated that only a few aquifers (such as the Guarani) shared between Paraguay, Argentina, Uruguay, and Brazil have an institutional mechanism in place, and also share some level of data exchange.  

The main challenge facing transboundary basin management is finding the mechanisms to build institutions that can both overcome the logic of territorial administration based on the approach of national sovereignty and also incorporate the notion of shared rights and duties within new institutional frameworks of transboundary cooperation. Yet it is only when nations build such institutions that effective responses to the complexities of water interdependence can be found.

The Role of the UN Conventions on Transboundary Watercourses

The two United Nations Conventions on Transboundary Watercourses (1992 & 1997) have been important institutional mechanisms to promote cooperation among riparian states. As I noted in an essay co-authored with Alistair Rieu-Clarke, states have an incentive to join the Conventions because they provide a legal framework that clarifies the rights and obligations of riparian states and also provide guidance on issues such as water allocation, pollution control, and the management of water-related risks.

For instance, the UN Convention on Transboundary Watercourses and International Lakes (1992) clearly promotes environmental protection and supports sustainable development throughout the protection of transboundary water resources and their ecosystems, as well as the integration of water management into broader development plans and policies.

The 1992 Convention is a framework agreement. Its provisions are adapted to different contexts around the globe. Moreover, it does not replace existing specific bilateral and multilateral agreements on transboundary basins and aquifers but promotes the establishment, implementation, and development of these agreements. In other words, the 1992 Convention functions as a legal basis for the improvement of existing agreements as well as the establishment of new ones.

States that are parties to the 1992 Convention are also required to take all appropriate measures to prevent, control, and reduce any transboundary impact, to use transboundary waters in a reasonable and equitable manner, and to ensure their sustainable management. These obligations have a foundation in the three fundamental pillars on which the Convention is based: 1) prevent, control, and reduce any transboundary impact; 2) use transboundary waters in a reasonable and equitable way; and 3) conclude transboundary agreements and set up joint bodies.

Specific Challenges in Latin America

Transboundary river basins in Latin America face several challenges, including water scarcity, which impacts agricultural and industrial activities and is further compounded by population growth.

Climate change is having an immense impact on the water cycle in Latin America, leading to changes in rainfall patterns, water availability, and quality. And as we have seen, there is also a significant deficit in the institutional capacity for the management of those basins. Another important element that is not often mentioned is a lack of funding and resources. Border areas in Latin America are often marginalized zones with very little public investment, which makes international cooperation even more essential.  

Yet the lack of agreements in place in Latin America is troubling. According to the national reports sent by the Latin American and Caribbean countries to UNECE and UNESCO, as well as the analysis made by the Iberoamerican Conference of Water Director (CODIA), 10 countries in the region have 10 percent or fewer of their transboundary watersheds covered by operational agreements. Only four countries—Argentina, Brazil, Ecuador, and Paraguay—have more than 90 percent covered.

A deeper look into the numbers is revealing. In its national report, only Ecuador stated that it had operational arrangements in force for the entire area of its transboundary basins, including transboundary aquifers. Brazil reported 98 percent of operational arrangements are in place for its transboundary rivers and lakes, yet when transboundary aquifers are included, this figure drops to 67 percent. A similar dynamic exists both in Paraguay (100 percent of rivers and lakes, but only 51 percent of aquifers) and in Argentina (100 percent and 60 percent, respectively).

Figures from elsewhere in the region are even more dismaying. Mexico has operational arrangements in 50 percent of its transboundary river basins, but only in 22 percent of its transboundary aquifers. Other countries have very few or no operational arrangements in place at all.

Policy Recommendations: More and Better Institutions

The evidence for a need to improve management of transboundary river basins and aquifers in Latin America is clear. But how can the nations of the region help make that happen? These policy recommendations are important steps to consider:

• Promote more and better institutional frameworks to strengthen cooperation and coordination among riparian countries and other stakeholders as they develop joint management strategies. This goal can be achieved through bilateral and multilateral agreements, joint committees, and regular communication.

• Increase regional cooperation through the use of global instruments such as the UN Transboundary Watercourses Conventions (1992 & 1997), which provide a useful global platform for policy development. These agreements also provide legal certainty to riparian states, investors, and other stakeholders by establishing clear rules and procedures for the management of water resources.

• Implement monitoring and data-sharing systems to track water quality, quantity, and use. This activity can help identify trends and potential problems and support evidence-based decision-making. Also, recognize that institutional building is required—and must be prioritized—to create the necessary infrastructure for data sharing and joint monitoring.

Allocate the funding and deliver the technical support required to improve the capacity of riparian countries to manage transboundary river basins effectively. This assistance could include capacity building, training, and technical assistance.