Building Resilience Through
Transboundary Water Resources
Management
J. G. Timmerman
Contents
1
2
3
4
5
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Benefits of Cooperation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Elements of Transboundary Cooperation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Twelve Principles of Water Governance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Improving the Enabling Environment in Transboundary Water Management . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.1 Policy Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.2 Legal Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.3 Institutional Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.4 Information Management and Exchange . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.5 Financial Arrangements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7 Cross-References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2
3
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
14
15
15
16
Abstract
The Earth’s climate is changing, affecting society mainly through hydrological
changes; floods, droughts, and impaired water quality. Improved water management, specifically water governance, is needed to cope with these changes,
especially in transboundary basins. Resilient water governance needs an enabling
environment that can deal with existing water management problems as well as
has the flexibility to deal with future, uncertain situations. This chapter discusses
how the enabling environment can be developed and improved to account for
climate change and gives directions on how to achieve that.
Where there is a general reluctance among countries to cooperate on water
management issues, experiences have shown that cooperation holds benefits for
all riparians that go beyond the direct benefits of noncooperation. These benefits
are not restricted to the water domain but extend to general economic, social, and
J. G. Timmerman (*)
Waterframes, Lelystad, The Netherlands
e-mail: jos.timmerman@waterframes.nl
© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020
R. Brears (ed.), The Palgrave Handbook of Climate Resilient Societies,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-32811-5_17-1
1
2
J. G. Timmerman
environmental benefits. A major task in transboundary cooperation is to share
those benefits in an equitable way.
The enabling environment consists of five elements: policy, legal, and institutional setting, information management and exchange, and financial arrangements. These elements are closely interlinked. A working enabling environment
builds on the OECD principles of water governance. This chapter describes a
series of lessons learned from experiences in transboundary water management
adaptation. The lessons and the associated case studies are linked to the elements
of the enabling environment and can be used to guide the process of developing
and improving transboundary cooperation. In all of this, there has to be a political
will to cooperate.
Keywords
Transboundary cooperation · Wter governance · Enabling environment ·
Resilient water resources management · Lessons learned
1
Introduction
The scientific evidence clearly shows that the climate is changing and will continue
to change (IPCC 2018), affecting societies and the environment. Evidence is accumulating that meteorological and hydrological changes are occurring and will
increase in the near future (Blöschl et al. 2017; Su et al. 2018). Affects occur directly
through the hydrological systems that change water availability, water quality, and
extreme events, and the number of people affected by water scarcity, decreasing
water quality, and floods is already high and is expected to increase with climate
change (WWAP 2020). Indirectly, changes occur in water demand, which in turn can
have impacts on energy production, food security, and the economy, among others.
Moreover, the spread of water-related diseases is expected to increase, and ultimately
the attainment of a number of other Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) is
affected (World Bank 2016). Climate change will consequently increase security
risks and will limit the available opportunities for development (PBL 2018).
Adaptation in water management has therefore become urgent. Adaptation measures are needed to reduce water scarcity, in terms of surface water and groundwater
resources but also in terms of water quality, and to avert flooding. More than one
billion people were affected by droughts in the period 1995–2015, while floods have
accounted for 47% of all weather-related disasters, affecting 2.3 billion people. The
reported economic damage amounted to US$662 billion for floods and US$100
billion for droughts (CRED/UNISDR 2015). Without measures, water scarcity is
expected to expand to regions where it currently does not exist and may considerably
worsen the situation in regions where water resources are already stressed (Gosling
and Arnell 2016), also because the water demand is expected to increase with
increasing population and development (WWAP 2020). This may lead to an increase
is agricultural failures, loss of livestock, water shortages, and outbreaks of epidemic
Building Resilience Through Transboundary Water Resources Management
3
diseases (Dilley et al. 2005). Also, the intensity and frequency of floods are expected
to increase, without measures leading to direct damages to lives and infrastructure,
loss of crops, and increase of epidemic diseases, among others (IPCC 2014).
Moreover, water-related disasters, especially droughts, have long driven forced
migration, and this may increase as lack of access or availability of water increases
(Mach and Richter 2018). Where climate change affects society mainly through
hydrological changes, climate change adaptation is to a large extent an issue of
improving water governance (Timmerman et al. 2017).
Worldwide, 310 international river basins are shared by 150 countries and 592
aquifers cross sovereign borders (McCracken and Wolf 2019; Petersen-Perlman et
al. 2017; UNECE/UNESCO 2018). Transboundary basins account for an estimated
60 percent of global freshwater flow, cover 47.1% of the Earth’s land surface, and
include 52% of the world’s population (McCracken and Wolf 2019; UN-Water
2008). At the subnational level, many more watersheds cross administrative boundaries. The potential for transboundary conflict is increasing with rising water demand
and increasing variability (Petersen-Perlman et al. 2017).
Transboundary cooperation in mitigation and adaptation, especially the intersection of transboundary basins and riparian countries (Bakker and Duncan 2017), is
crucial to prevent possible negative impacts of unilateral measures and maladaptation and to make mitigation and adaptation more effective (e.g., by reducing
uncertainty through the exchange of data, enlarging the range and location of
available measures, and sharing the costs and benefits). It also helps to prevent
conflict, reduces existing knowledge gaps, and promotes peace and regional integration, as well as wider economic development (UNECE/UNISDR 2018; UNECE
2009). This chapter discusses benefits of transboundary cooperation, will detail the
enabling environment as prerequisite for that cooperation, and will dwell on what is
needed to improve the cooperation.
2
Benefits of Cooperation
Water management in general can be characterized as a complex process, which has
to balance between a range of different uses and interests. Transboundary water
management adds to this complexity through conflicts, differing values and beliefs,
cultural differences, complex power relationships, and politics (Lorenz 2004;
Woodhill 2004; Zeitoun and Warner 2006). And upstream and downstream interests
may differ while often upstream countries are less exposed to negative effects of
their use, e.g., through pollution (Lorenz 2004). And the chances of mismanagement
due to misunderstanding, mistrust, or lack of information increase as a watershed
crosses more administrative boundaries (Petersen-Perlman et al. 2017). The complexity hinders proper cooperation. Meanwhile, both situations of conflict over
specific issues and cooperation may exist simultaneously (Zeitoun et al. 2017;
Zeitoun and Warner 2006). Often, the shared basin or aquifer is considered a zerosum game, where one country’s water use comes at the expense of the other riparian.
4
J. G. Timmerman
There is, however, evidence that cooperation can generate benefits for all riparians,
making cooperation a positive sum game (Kramer and Pohl 2016).
The benefits from cooperation range from benefits directly related to improved
water management like improved hydropower production and transmission, flood
protection, increased agricultural output, improved water quality, secured environmental flows, and wetland conservation to benefits beyond the water domain like
better integration of markets and trade increased regional cooperation as well as
regional security and stability (Kramer and Pohl 2016). Claudia Sadoff and David
Grey distinguished four types of benefits from cooperation (Sadoff and Grey 2005):
• Increasing benefits to the river, like improved water quality, river flow characteristics, soil conservation, biodiversity, and overall sustainability
• Increasing benefits from the river, like improved water resources management for
hydropower and agricultural production, flood-drought management, navigation,
environmental conservation, water quality, and recreation
• Reducing costs because of the river, like a policy shift to cooperation and
development, away from dispute/conflict, from food and energy self-sufficiency
to food and energy security, and reduced dispute/conflict risk and military
expenditure
• Increasing benefits beyond the river, like integration of regional infrastructure,
markets, and trade
Cooperation can and does take place at different levels, ranging from simple
information sharing to joint ownership and management of infrastructure investments on the different benefit levels. But higher levels of cooperation do not
automatically lead to more benefits in all basins (Sadoff and Grey 2005). Deciding
about cooperation should therefore be done on a case-by-case basis and should be
based on an assessment of the potential benefits.
As part of the work on implementing the Convention on the Protection and Use of
Transboundary Watercourses and International Lakes (UNECE 1992), a methodology was developed to identify, assess, and communicate the benefits of cooperation.
A typology was developed to support this methodology (Table 1).
With increasing water scarcity, both through reduced precipitation and increasing
water pollution, the nexus between water and food, energy, and ecosystems become
more prominent. A nexus approach establishes coherence between the different
sectoral policies and can bring mutual benefits and form a solid basis for equitable
water allocations (UNECE 2018). For instance, a study into joint hydropower and
agricultural water resources allocation in international river basins, where upstream
hydropower operations can impact downstream irrigation supplies, based on the
concept of sharing benefits showed promising results (Jalilov et al. 2015; Luchner
Jakob et al. 2019). Inclusion of ecosystems in the nexus is relevant as the so-called
nature-based solutions can enhance water security through improved water availability and water quality. They also provide opportunities for social, economic, and
environmental benefits in reducing water-related risks and in providing mitigation
options (WWAP 2018, 2020).
Building Resilience Through Transboundary Water Resources Management
5
Table 1. Typology of the potential benefits of transboundary water cooperation (UNECE 2015)
Origin of
benefits
Improved
water
management
Enhanced
trust
3
Benefits for economic activities
Economic benefits
Expanded activity and productivity in
economic sectors (aquaculture,
irrigated agriculture, mining, energy
generation, industrial production,
nature-based tourism)
Reduced cost of carrying out
productive activities
Reduced economic impacts of waterrelated hazards (floods, droughts)
Increased value of property
Regional economic cooperation
benefitsDevelopment of regional
markets for goods, services, and labor
Increase in cross-border investments
Development of transnational
infrastructure networks
Benefits beyond economic activities
Social and environmental benefits
Health impacts from improved water
quality and reduced risk of waterrelated disasters. Employment and
reduced poverty impacts of the
economic benefits
Improved access to services (such as
electricity and water supply)
Improved satisfaction due to
preservation of cultural resources or
access to recreational opportunities
Increased ecological integrity and
reduced habitat degradation and
biodiversity loss
Strengthened scientific knowledge on
water status
Peace and security benefits
Strengthening of international law
Increased geopolitical stability and
strengthened diplomatic relations New
opportunities from increased trust
(joint initiatives and investments)
Reduced risk and avoided cost of
conflict and savings from reduced
military spending Creation of a shared
basin identity
Elements of Transboundary Cooperation
Prevention and resolution of (potential) conflicts between water uses in riparian
countries can be realized by developing common rules and procedures of cooperation that enable joint management of shared water resources (Nilsson 2006; Savenije
and van der Zaag 2000). Such a set of (implicit or explicit) principles, rules, and
decision-making procedures that enable convergence of stakeholders’ expectations
is called a regime. Transboundary water regimes usually include formal rules such as
international water conventions, statutes of transboundary water commissions, cooperative agreements adopted by national governments aimed at coordinating national
water management activities in transboundary water basins, and relevant national
laws and procedures. Regimes also include informal rules such as traditional ways of
using natural resources (e.g., traditional ways of transport or fishing) that are
informally accepted in transboundary water basins but are not documented as formal
norms in agreements or contracts. All this is part of what is called water governance,
which takes into account that a large number of stakeholders in different institutional
6
J. G. Timmerman
settings contribute to policy and management of a resource (Roll et al. 2008;
Timmerman et al. 2011b; Timmerman and Bernardini 2009).
Five central elements are distinguished to describe a transboundary regime. Those
are (1) the policy setting, (2) the legal setting, (3) the institutional setting including the
actor networks, (4) the information management and exchange, and (5) the financing
systems. Together these five elements form what is called the enabling environment.
the elements that, when implemented in a good way, enable implementation and
reaching of targets and goals (Raadgever et al. 2008; Timmerman et al. 2011b).
However, in implementing rules and procedures in a transboundary context, decision-makers perceive several categories of risks (Subramanian et al. 2012):
• Is there sufficient confidence in the ability to negotiate a fair deal and in having
enough and correct information and knowledge to do so?
• Can the benefits be delivered by the regional entity and co-riparians, which is
often related to trust and to having a say in decision-making in the governing
structures of the regional entity?
• Does the regional entity have the ability to act in the best interest of the countries
without constraints, making independently decisions?
• Are the benefits and costs distributed in a fair way among the countries, including
their timing, and is fair access to the river retained?
• Will the agreement be valid over a longer period of time, and is there enough
support in the countries, including the likelihood of ratification?
In order to overcome these risks, Subramanian et al. (2012) identified seven
categories of risk reduction that can be linked to the five elements of the enabling
environment. The policy setting provides for the country interests and goals and
gives a program to reach this. The legal setting provides for the design of agreements
that formalize goals and obligations. The institutional setting delivers the cooperative arrangement for dialogue and action among riparians, arranges for consultation
and discussion forums, and supports capacity-building. The information management offers an unbiased basis for dialogue. The financing system, finally, is responsible for meeting financing needs and gaps identified by countries. Transboundary
cooperation depends on creating an environment that enables cooperation and
therefore on a proper design of the five elements that constitute the enabling
environment. It should be noted that the elements of the enabling environment are
prerequisites for transboundary cooperation, but they need to be properly
implemented to enable cooperation.
4
Twelve Principles of Water Governance
Recognizing that water governance is key to improving current and future water
management, the OECD has developed 12 principles to improve the efficiency and
effectiveness of and enhance trust and engagement in water governance (OECD
2015). The 12 principles of good water governance relate to the 5 elements of
Building Resilience Through Transboundary Water Resources Management
7
enabling the cooperation as well as to implementing cooperation. The principles call
for policy coherence and water management at the appropriate scale which clearly
links to the policy setting. This includes managing trade-offs across water users,
rural and urban areas, and generations. The legal setting is reflected in the principle
of ensuring that sound water management regulatory frameworks are effectively
implemented and enforced. The principle of clearly allocating and distinguishing
roles and responsibilities of and the coordination between water policymaking,
implementation, and operations relates to the institutional setting. This also includes
the principle of promoting stakeholder engagement and capacity development of
responsible authorities. On the part of information management and exchange, the
principles prescribe producing, updating, and sharing timely, consistent, comparable, and policy-relevant water and water-related data and information and promote
regular monitoring and evaluation of water policy and governance. The financial
arrangements are captured in the principle of ensuring governance arrangements to
help mobilize water finance and allocate financial resources (OECD 2015).
An important boundary condition for implementation of cooperation is described
in the principle of mainstreaming integrity and transparency practices across water
policies, water institutions, and water governance frameworks to ensure accountability and trust in decision-making. The principle of adoption and implementation
of innovative water governance practices finally ensures that growing insights are
incorporated in the implementation of cooperation (OECD 2015).
5
Improving the Enabling Environment in Transboundary
Water Management
Based on almost a decade of cooperation on transboundary climate adaptation in
water management under the implementation program of the UNECE Water Convention (UNECE 1992), a series of 63 lessons on how to implement cooperation
have been collected in the report “Water and Climate Change Adaptation in Transboundary Basins: Lessons Learned and Good Practices” (UNECE/INBO 2015). The
lessons are accompanied by cases that show the actual implementation of a specific
lesson, thus forming practical recommendations for implementing transboundary
cooperation. Each of the 63 lessons has been linked to one or more of the water
governance principles (Timmerman et al. 2017).
In Table 2, the lessons are linked to the five elements of the enabling environment
for transboundary cooperation to provide concrete advice when working on improving the enabling environment. The lessons do not provide a comprehensive overview
of all aspects, and not all lessons will apply in each situation. The lessons are
intended to provide directions and examples that have to be adapted to the specifics
of each basin. The five elements will now be discussed in more detail, also taking
into account the lessons as listed in Table 2.
8
J. G. Timmerman
Table 2 Overview of the lessons learned (UNECE/INBO 2015) relative to the five elements of the
enabling environment (Raadgever et al. 2008)
Policy setting
1. Develop an adaptation strategy at the transboundary level
2. Ensure political support for the basin-wide strategy
3. Demonstrate the benefits of basin-wide cooperation in adaptation
4. Integrate climate change adaptation within river basin management planning
6. Reconcile uncertainty and confidence in recommendations and strategy
7. Adopt a flexible approach to climate change adaptation in the transboundary basin
8. Use ecosystem-based adaptation as a cost-effective alternative to “gray” infrastructure
11. Climate change is one of the many pressures on water resources
19. Facilitate trust building and collaborative learning
20. Apply transparency and openness throughout the process
21. Involve decision-makers in the adaptation process from the beginning
32. Raise awareness of the importance of acting at a basin-wide scale
43. Consider the whole basin and all steps of the water cycle in the vulnerability assessment
44. Assess vulnerability at both the basin and sub-basin levels
48. Develop a mix of structural and nonstructural measures
51. Develop a transboundary early warning system
52. Assess economic, environmental, and social costs and benefits
53. When selecting adaptation measures, consider their impact on mitigation
55. Locate adaptation measures at the most beneficial location
60. Develop a theory of change
Legal setting
5. Environmental impact assessment/strategic environmental assessment as legal instruments
12. Implement existing transboundary agreements in a flexible way
13. Design new transboundary agreements to be flexible
14. Include flexibility mechanisms in water allocation schemes
15. Climate-proof regulations for water quality
16. Give a mandate to river basin organizations to address climate change
Institutional setting
9. Ensure synergies and linkages between government levels and across sectors
10. Involve all sectors and ministries in defining adaptation priorities
17. Create a specific working group responsible for climate change adaptation
18. Use existing non-RBO institutions and mechanisms for transboundary cooperation
22. Ensure stakeholder participation in all steps of the adaptation process
23. Ensure stakeholder participation and ownership
24. Build transboundary teams
25. Identify the needs for capacity development
26. Develop a capacity-development plan
30. Clearly define the strategic objectives of communication in advance
31. Launch an initial communication plan
33. Tailor messages to your audience, based on its characteristics and needs
34. Handle internal communication between project partners
35. Implement and model communication at the most appropriate scale
(continued)
Building Resilience Through Transboundary Water Resources Management
9
Table 2 (continued)
36. Select appropriate instruments to communicate about climate change impacts
37. Use targeted approaches to raise awareness on the need for adaptation
45. Link vulnerability assessment with capacity-building for decision-makers and stakeholders
47. Involve stakeholders in vulnerability assessments
54. Establish a transparent, participatory, and explicit prioritization process
Information management and exchange
28. Facilitate the exchange of insights and experience
29. Ensure the exchange of knowledge between technical specialists and decision-makers
38. Identify information needs and processes for information handling
39. Ensure collection and sharing of data, information, and models
40. Evaluate thematic, spatial, and temporal areas of data coverage and gaps
41. Build a common repository of the information to be communicated
42. Develop a common understanding of concepts
46. Harmonize and integrate the use of models and scenarios
49. Develop a common monitoring system
50. Ensure that monitoring and observation systems can adjust
61. Use a portfolio of monitoring and evaluation tools
62. Evaluate the effectiveness of adaptation measures
63. Establish mechanisms for regularly reviewing the assessments
Financial arrangements
27. Ensure that investments target the ability to integrate multidisciplinary information
56. Consider using economic analysis to build the case for action
57. Ensure adequate financing for adaptation through a mix of public and private funds
58. Mainstream adaptation costs into the overall costs of water management
59. Use economic instruments for water management
5.1
Policy Setting
Policies are the goals of governments and other organizations describing strategies to
reach those goals, often laid down in formal documents. Policies can be formulated
at the transboundary level as well. Policies usually refer to the contemporary needs at
different levels (national or local) and how to fulfill these. In view of climate change,
policies should be designed to perform in multiple possible futures and in a changing
environment (Timmerman et al. 2011b).
The transboundary aspects add to the complexity of developing and implementing
policies as national interests of riparian countries generally differ and can even be
conflicting. Table 2 shows that the policy setting determines the scope and width of the
cooperation (for instance, lessons 1, 8, 48, 53 in Table 2) and is essential in building
trust and developing transparency (lessons 19 and 20). The policy setting also
determines the flexibility that will be applied in the cooperation (lesson 7) as well
as, for instance, the best place to implement measures (lesson 55). This is, however,
not a given in many basins. For example, often infrastructure projects are implemented
at national level with the aim to exclusively meet national and many times short-term
10
J. G. Timmerman
goals without due consideration of other riparian countries’ needs. One driving factor
for this is that large infrastructures provide a very visible opportunity for governments
to showcase that they are capable of achieving substantial works. Then, even when
legal and institutional mechanisms for cooperation are in place under the acknowledgment that cooperation is beneficial, conflicts of interest may bring countries to
ignore the cooperation agreements. Finally, differences between countries in human,
technical, and financial capacities influence the ability for effective basin management
at both national and transboundary levels. So even where cooperation exists, successful implementation and compliance may be troublesome (Schmeier and Vogel 2018).
Another aspect that may hinder transboundary policy development, and connected to
that cooperation, is the power difference that often exists between riparian countries.
More powerful countries, in terms of military or economic power, often tend to pursue
their national interests without much consideration for the other countries’ needs. They
pursue a status quo that, especially in a changing climate, may exacerbate already
existing problems basin wide (Zeitoun et al. 2017).
5.2
Legal Setting
The legal setting refers to the full set of national and international laws and
agreements that in one way or another relate to or influence water management.
Laws can establish or influence formal networks, structures for information management, and financial aspects of water management. In general, laws and agreements are developed to last for a longer period of time. However, under changing
conditions, especially as a result of climate change, laws and agreements may turn
out to be unfavorable to certain stakeholders as a result of the changes, and
adaptation of the law or agreement is necessary as, for instance, lessons 12, 13 and
14 show.
A general shift can be distinguished from an earlier focus on regulation and
development of water resources to the management of resources and the setting of
frameworks for that management. Treaties increasingly mention environment next to
mere water allocation and irrigation issues and have become more comprehensive
both in the issues they address and the tools to cooperatively manage these issues
(Giordano et al. 2014). Nevertheless, older treaties may need revision. In the
Colorado River, for instance, the decades-old transboundary cooperation treaty
between Mexico and the United States of America was amended in 2013. A specific
addition was made to the treaty to allow for measures in situations of water quantity
fluctuations that might be due to climate change (Buono and Eckstein 2014). Regular
review, and when necessary updating, of the law or agreement should therefore be
included in the legal framework (Raadgever et al. 2008; Timmerman et al. 2011b).
Existing transboundary water-sharing agreements are, in general, relatively
inflexible in the face of climate change (Petersen-Perlman et al. 2017). This may
not be surprising, as the vast majority of treaties were signed in the last century
(Giordano et al. 2014), when substantial changes to the hydrological system were not
yet anticipated. Clinging to existing agreements may drive and aggravate existing
Building Resilience Through Transboundary Water Resources Management
11
and future tensions between riparian countries (Bakker and Duncan 2017). Structural
inflexibility of the agreements allows countries to elevate their national interests by
sticking to the letter, not to the spirit of the agreement, thus also reducing trust
(Qamar et al. 2019). Revision of agreements is therefore needed but faces resistance,
as countries may fear ending up with less favorable conditions after renegotiating. In
an unsustainable situation, however, revision is needed to account for the newly
evolving situation. The Colorado case shows that this is possible and is not necessarily disadvantageous for the riparian countries.
Legal aspects play an important role in the effectiveness of River Basin Organizations (RBO). A clear mandate and clearly specified powers help to avoid disagreements and conflicts over the work of an RBO (lesson 16). The legal foundation of an
RBO is therefore a necessary basis for effective transboundary cooperation (Schmeier
and Shubber 2018). Next to that, international methodologies like Environmental
Impact Assessment and Strategic Environmental Assessment can support working
toward more sustainable water management by including them into the transboundary
agreement (lesson 5).
5.3
Institutional Setting
Integrated water management implies actively involving a wide range of governmental and nongovernmental stakeholders (Ridder et al. 2005). Institutional settings
have to account for meaningful and constructive discussions. This is, among others,
reflected in the lessons 9, 10, 22, 23, and 47. In general, however, the institutional
capacity in transboundary basins is low which may lead to aggravation of climate
change impacts (Bakker and Duncan 2017). Joint bodies can, to a large extent, cover
for the necessary interactions and decision-making (Timmerman et al. 2011b).
Joint bodies, like RBOs, play an important role in many basins of the world.
RBOs can help in building institutional capacity and in resolving and preventing
water conflicts through stabilizing relations between countries (Milman and Gerlak
2020). But not all RBOs are effective in this respect (Petersen-Perlman et al. 2017).
Different types of institutional arrangements are in place that each have advantages
and disadvantages and are dependent on the regional situation. Huitema and
Meijerink (2017) distinguish between (1) autonomous RBOs that have an independent position vis-à-vis other government organizations, (2) agencies that have a
mandate that it derives from another body (e.g., a ministry or a set of ministries), (3)
coordinating RBOs that have no authority of its own but are a facilitator of coordination between organizations that do have responsibilities in the field of water
management, and (4) partnership RBOs that are bottom-up initiatives having control
over a resource that is commonly owned or controlled by the partners. In the end, an
effective RBO should enhance coordination, accountability, legitimacy, and environmental issues (Huitema and Meijerink 2017). Effective capacity of RBOs may be
improved by ambiguity in the agreement that may decrease conflict by allowing each
side to present the treaty differently at home, an adaptable management structure that
allows for flexibility under change, clear and flexible allocating criteria among
12
J. G. Timmerman
riparians, equitable distribution of benefits, and detailed conflict resolution mechanisms (Petersen-Perlman et al. 2017).
RBOs can, within such boundaries, support application of environmental and
social safeguards. A complicating factor in this is that the scale of decision-making
may not match the basin scale. Energy investments, for instance, are decided upon at
the national level, not matching hydropower decisions taken at a basin scale, thus
limiting the influence of an RBO (Dombrowsky and Hensengerth 2018). Nevertheless, RBOs can facilitate cross-border commitment and action by achieving a shared
vision on how to tackle water management problems. The bottom line is that there is
a strong political will at the highest level (Qamar et al. 2019).
For proper dialogue between countries, it is essential that all parties involved are
at the same level of understanding of the problems and risks as identified and the
possibilities to counter these problems and risks. Capacity development and communication should therefore be an intrinsic part of the institutional setting. To cover
for capacity development, lessons 25, 26, and 45 point at this as an important
element for cooperation, and lessons 30, 31, and 33–37 point at the importance of
communication. RBOs can facilitate this (Schmeier 2013). Cooperation can nevertheless also take place outside the RBO setting (lessons 18 and 24).
5.4
Information Management and Exchange
Information is an essential element in water management. Information is needed to
assess the situation in terms of the status of the basin and existing affects, and
through models and scenarios provide a view on possible futures (lesson 39).
Furthermore, in order to develop policy options and monitor policy implementation
and results, information is needed on the origin of problems as well as on policies
and implementation of measures (see lesson 62). The Driving force-Pressure-StateImpact-Response (DPSIR) framework provides a useful framework to identify the
need for information (Timmerman et al. 2010, 2011a).
Countries worldwide collect substantial amounts of data in support of water
management and water policy, while the data is criticized by decision-makers for
not being useful. This is called the “data-rich-but-information-poor” syndrome, a
situation in which data is collected without a clear view of what information is to be
produced out of it (Ward et al. 1986). On the other hand, in many countries, the
availability of data is inadequate to support water management, especially when it
comes to water quality data (UN-Water 2016). In both situations, there is a need for
careful consideration of the information needed to ensure that useful information is
collected at the least cost (lesson 38).
In collecting and producing information, it should be kept in mind that the
information needs to be useful to the decision-makers for policy-making and policy
implementation (lessons 28 and 29). Information is considered useful when it is (1)
salient and context-sensitive, responding to the specific information demands; (2)
credible, perceived by the users to be accurate, valid, and of high quality; and (3)
legitimate, the production of information is perceived to be unbiased (McNie 2007).
Building Resilience Through Transboundary Water Resources Management
13
To ensure that the information production process produces useful information,
decision-makers should be closely involved in specifying information needs
(Timmerman et al. 2000).
Despite the broad recognition of scientific information as the major basis for
decision-making, in many cases, the available information is not or only partly used,
and in a transboundary situation, there is little or no exchange. There are various
ways how information is used in a decision-making context (Timmerman 2004):
• Information is merely a legal obligation. According to (international) laws and
regulations, information has to be collected and reported, and there is no consideration of its actual applicability.
• Information as hideout or safeguard. Water management activities are directed
toward monitoring to provide a sense of being active without having to take actual
measures.
• Information to postpone decisions. Related to the previous point, a call for more
information to better understand the situation is sometimes used to postpone
decisions.
• Information as a “weapon.” Using partial information to point out a scapegoat that
is held responsible for the problem.
• Information as a trading good. The available information is used as a commodity
that can be traded.
• Information to direct decision-making. Only the part of the information that
supports the desired outcomes will be put to the fore.
As there is always a certain level of uncertainty (or imperfection) connected to
information, even more when models are involved, and information production is
based on certain values and concepts, the use of information as described above can
take place. Nevertheless, decision-making is widely based on the best scientific
information available, and exchange of information in a transboundary setting is
therefore of high importance (e.g., lessons 40 and 41).
In the first reporting cycle for the SDGs held in 2017–2018, 107 out of 153
countries sharing transboundary waters responded to the invitation to report on SDG
indicator 6.5.2. Overall, reports from all regions mentioned harmonization, lack of
resources and capacity, as well as lack of agreements as the main difficulties to data
exchange. Gaps on data availability are often related to technical infrastructure
adequateness, which touches on issues of harmonization as well as of lack of
resources and capacity. This includes lack of common databases and monitoring
networks, outdated scientific knowledge, and also incompatibility between the
institutional frameworks in place at a national level and transboundary governance
(UN-Water 2018, p.). In general, there is an increasing engagement of countries in
data and information exchange in transboundary water agreements often hindered by
more technical issues. On the other hand, there is reluctance in many states to
legalize formal schedules for exchange (Gerlak et al. 2014) which may allow the
states for greater flexibility in the face of resource uncertainty or to serve domestic
14
J. G. Timmerman
political purposes (Fischhendler 2008; Sok et al. 2019). A common monitoring
system is nevertheless crucial for transboundary cooperation.
5.5
Financial Arrangements
Inadequate water management results in economic losses in many countries, next to
impaired health and social well-being, and this is expected to increase due to climate
change (also see lessons 27 and 56). On the other hand, benefit-cost ratios for
investments in water and sanitation services can deliver substantial economic and
noneconomic benefits (OECD 2011). A number of (economic) barriers exist that
account for this gap, including (OECD 2018):
• Water is generally an undervalued resource.
• Water services are often underpriced, hampering cost recovery for water
investments.
• Water infrastructure usually requires high initial investments followed by a very
long payback period.
• Water management generates a mix of public and private benefits that cannot be
easily monetized, undermining potential revenue flows.
Establishing a financially sustainable basis for the water sector requires finding
the right mix between the ultimate revenues for the water sector, the so-called 3Ts:
tariffs, taxes, and transfers. Taxes account for a large part of water management
financing in many countries (lesson 57). These expenses are often part of the public
budget; in some cases, specific water or environmental taxes are in place. The
general predictability of public spending allows for longer-term planning and investments. Tariffs are linked to the direct use (e.g., household water use or water
abstraction) and indirect use (e.g., licenses for wastewater disposal or other types
of pollution). Tariff policies should be established that are affordable to all while
ensuring the financial sustainability of service providers. Tariffs will generally
provide incentives for more efficient use of water and allow for sustainable cost
recovery as it is directly linked to the intensity of use (Timmerman et al. 2011b).
Transfers, finally, come in many different forms with specific demands linked to the
transfer. In general, transfers are used for initial investments but do not account for
operation and maintenance. Every country must find its own balance among the
three basic sources of finance (OECD 2009). The financial system should, nevertheless, ensure that water management needs economic instruments, even more
when climate change adaptation comes into play (lessons 58 and 59).
Building Resilience Through Transboundary Water Resources Management
6
15
Conclusions
Managing water resources asks for a basin-wide approach, and in transboundary
basins, a transboundary cooperation is needed. Existing differences between countries are a complicating factor when it comes to cooperation. The concept of the
“enabling environment” provides a good basis for developing and improving that
cooperation. Developing and fine-tuning of the five elements of the enabling environment will support improved cooperation, but this is not easily achieved.
There is a need for the countries to develop the will to cooperate and translate this
into policies describing the objectives and goals of the cooperation. These policies
should reflect the OECD principles of water governance and set the boundary
conditions for the enabling environment. Agreements can subsequently be built
based on these policies that lay down the requisites of the cooperation that in turn
limit the policy space. The agreements usually describe the institutional setup that
implements the cooperation. The institutional setup can take many forms, depending
on the objectives of the cooperation as well as cultural motives, power considerations, etc. Care should be taken that the institutions are embedded in the policy
system and do not become a political power of its own. The agreements often also
prescribe the information management and exchange system that can subsequently
be facilitated by the institutions. A transparent information exchange system is
essential in building trust and support for the cooperation. The agreements also,
but often partially, lay down the financial arrangements, and the institutions can be
helpful in implementing them. The financial arrangements are also important to build
and sustain trust and support. The five elements are consequently interconnected.
There is not one proper way of building the enabling environment; this is highly
dependent on the situation at hand. Nevertheless, there are some basics to account
for. The OECD principles of water governance provide a solid basis. This chapter
also provides several insights into how the various elements should work and where
problems occur. The 63 lessons learned, finally, provide concrete guidance and
examples through their associated case descriptions in the referenced document. In
the end, it is up to the policy-makers to decide upon the arrangements. The major
condition is nevertheless the political will to cooperate.
7
Cross-References
▶ Climate Change and Water Resources in Southern Africa: A Resilience
Perspective
▶ Integrating Climate Change Considerations into Asset Management
▶ Investing In Ecosystems for Water Security: The Case of the Kenya Water Towers
▶ South-American Transboundary Waters: The Management of the Guarani Aquifer
and the La Plata Basin Towards the Future
▶ The Water-Energy-Food Nexus: From Concept to Implementation
▶ Transitions to Water Stewardship for Climate Resiliency
▶ Water’s Cross-Cutting Nature in Achieving the Sustainable Development Goals
16
J. G. Timmerman
References
Bakker, M. H. N., & Duncan, J. A. (2017). Future bottlenecks in international river basins: Where
transboundary institutions, population growth and hydrological variability intersect. Water
International, 42, 400–424. https://doi.org/10.1080/02508060.2017.1331412.
Blöschl, G., Hall, J., Parajka, J., Perdigão, R. A. P., Merz, B., Arheimer, B., Aronica, G. T.,
Bilibashi, A., Bonacci, O., Borga, M., Čanjevac, I., Castellarin, A., Chirico, G. B., Claps, P.,
Fiala, K., Frolova, N., Gorbachova, L., Gül, A., Hannaford, J., Harrigan, S., Kireeva, M., Kiss,
A., Kjeldsen, T. R., Kohnová, S., Koskela, J. J., Ledvinka, O., Macdonald, N., MavrovaGuirguinova, M., Mediero, L., Merz, R., Molnar, P., Montanari, A., Murphy, C., Osuch, M.,
Ovcharuk, V., Radevski, I., Rogger, M., Salinas, J. L., Sauquet, E., Šraj, M., Szolgay, J.,
Viglione, A., Volpi, E., Wilson, D., Zaimi, K., & Živković, N. (2017). Changing climate shifts
timing of European floods. Science, 357, 588. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aan2506.
Buono, R., & Eckstein, G. (2014). Minute 319: A cooperative approach to Mexico–US hydro-relations
on the Colorado River. Water International, 39. https://doi.org/10.1080/02508060.2014.906879.
CRED/UNISDR. (2015). The Human cost of weather related disasters 1995–2015. Brussels/
Geneva: Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters and UN Office for Disaster
Risk Reduction.
Dilley, M., Chen, R. S., Deichmann, U., Lerner-Lam, A. L., Arnold, M., Agwe, J., Buys, P.,
Kjevstad, O., Lyon, B., & Yetman, G. (2005). Natural disaster hotspots: A global risk analysis.
Washington, D.C: World Bank.
Dombrowsky, I., & Hensengerth, O. (2018). Governing the water-energy-food Nexus related to
hydropower on shared Rivers—The role of regional organizations. Frontiers in Environmental
Science, 6, 153. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2018.00153.
Fischhendler, I. (2008). Ambiguity in Transboundary environmental dispute resolution: The Israeli
– Jordanian water agreement*. Journal of Peace Research, 45, 91–109. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0022343307084925.
Gerlak, A. K., Lautze, J., & Giordano, M. (2014). Greater exchange, greater ambiguity: Water
resources data and information exchange in transboundary water treaties. In R. Q. Grafton, P.
Wyrwoll, C. White, & D. Allendes (Eds.), Global water: Issues and insights (pp. 57–63).
Canberra: Australian National University (ANU Press).
Giordano, M., Drieschova, A., Duncan, J. A., Sayama, Y., De Stefano, L., & Wolf, A. T. (2014). A review
of the evolution and state of transboundary freshwater treaties. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 14, 245–264. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10784-013-9211-8.
Gosling, S. N., & Arnell, N. W. (2016). A global assessment of the impact of climate change on
water scarcity. Climatic Change, 134, 371–385. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-013-0853-x.
Huitema, D., & Meijerink, S. (2017). The politics of river basin organizations: Institutional design
choices, coalitions, and consequences. Ecology and Society, 22, 42.
IPCC. (2014). Climate change 2014: Synthesis report. Contribution of working groups I, II and III
to the fifth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Geneva:
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
IPCC. (2018). Global warming of 1.5 C, an IPCC special report on the impacts of global warming
of 1.5 C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the
context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable
development, and efforts to eradicate poverty. Intergovernmental panel on climate change.
Jalilov, S.-M., Olli, V., & Keskinen, M. (2015). Sharing benefits in transboundary rivers: An
experimental case study of central Asian water-energy-agriculture Nexus. Water, 7, 4778–4805.
Kramer, A., & Pohl, B. (2016). Sharing benefits in shared basins. In What are the opportunities of
and experiences with benefit-sharing in transboundary basins? (discussion note), global highlevel panel on water and peace. Geneva: Geneva WaterHub.
Lorenz, C. M. (2004). From ‘we need more data’ paradigm to indicators in transboundary water
management. In Environmental information in European transboundary water management
(pp. 184–198). London: IWA Publishing.
Building Resilience Through Transboundary Water Resources Management
17
Luchner, J., Riegels, N. D., & Bauer-Gottwein, P. (2019). Benefits of cooperation in transnational
water-energy systems. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management, 145, 05019007.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)WR.1943-5452.0001047.
Mach, E., Richter, Ch. (2018). Water and migration: Implications for pol-icy makers. https://
sustainabledevelopment.un.org/hlpf/2018/blog#20mar. Accessed 20 Jan 20.
McCracken, M., & Wolf, A. T. (2019). Updating the register of International River basins of the
world. International Journal of Water Resources Development, 35, 732–782. https://doi.org/
10.1080/07900627.2019.1572497.
McNie, E. C. (2007). Reconciling the supply of scientific information with user demands: An
analysis of the problem and review of the literature. Environmental Science and Policy, 10, 17–
38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2006.10.004.
Milman, A., & Gerlak, A. K. (2020). International river basin organizations, science, and
hydrodiplomacy. Environmental Science & Policy, 107, 137–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
envsci.2020.02.023.
Nilsson, S. (2006). Managing water according to river basins. In Information management,
institutional arrangements and strategic policy support – With focus on the EU water framework directive. Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm: Sweden.
OECD. (2009). Managing water for all. An OECD perspective on pricing and financing. Key
messages for policy makers. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Paris:
France.
OECD. (2011). Benefits of investing in water and sanitation. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, Paris: France.
OECD. (2015). OECD principles on water governance. Welcomed by Ministers at the OECD
Ministerial Council Meeting on 4 June 2015, OECD water governance Programme. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Paris: France.
OECD. (2018). Financing water: Investing in sustainable growth (No. 11), OECD environment
policy paper. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Paris: France.
PBL. (2018). The geography of future water challenges. The Hague: PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency.
Petersen-Perlman, J. D., Veilleux, J. C., & Wolf, A. T. (2017). International water conflict and
cooperation: Challenges and opportunities. Water International, 42, 105–120. https://doi.org/
10.1080/02508060.2017.1276041.
Qamar, M. U., Azmat, M., & Claps, P. (2019). Pitfalls in transboundary Indus water treaty: A
perspective to prevent unattended threats to the global security. Npj Clean Water, 2, 22. https://
doi.org/10.1038/s41545-019-0046-x.
Raadgever, G. T., Mostert, E., Kranz, N., Interwies, E., & Timmerman, J. G. (2008). Assessing
management regimes in Transboundary River basins: Do they support adaptive management?
Ecology and Society, 13. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-02385-130114.
Ridder, D., Mostert, E., & Wolters, H. A. (2005). Learning together to manage together –
Improving participation in water management. Osnabrück: University of Osnabrück.
Roll, G., Alexeeva, N., Interwies, E., & Timmerman, J. G. (2008). Analysis of European IWRM
research on transboundary regimes. In The Adaptiveness of IWRM: Analysing European IWRM
research (pp. 45–60). London: IWA publishing.
Sadoff, C. W., & Grey, D. (2005). Cooperation on International Rivers. Water International, 30,
420–427. https://doi.org/10.1080/02508060508691886.
Savenije, H. H. G., & van der Zaag, P. (2000). Conceptual framework for the management of shared
river basins; with special reference to the SADC and EU. Water Policy, 2, 9–45.
Schmeier, S. (2013). Governing international watercourses. The contribution of River Basin
organizations to the effective governance of internationally shared rivers and lakes. London/
New York: Routledge.
Schmeier, S., & Shubber, Z. (2018). Anchoring water diplomacy – The legal nature of international
river basin organizations. Journal of Hydrology, 567, 114–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jhydrol.2018.09.054.
18
J. G. Timmerman
Schmeier, S., & Vogel, B. (2018). Ensuring long-term cooperation over Transboundary water
resources through Joint River basin management. In S. Schmutz & J. Sendzimir (Eds.), Riverine
ecosystem management: Science for governing towards a sustainable future (pp. 347–370).
Cham: Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-73250-3_18.
Sok, S., Meas, S., Chea, S., & Chhinh, N. (2019). Regional cooperation and benefit sharing for
sustainable water resources management in the lower Mekong Basin. Lakes & Reservoirs:
Science, Policy and Management for Sustainable Use, 24, 215–227. https://doi.org/10.1111/
lre.12277.
Su, L., Miao, C., Kong, D., Duan, Q., Lei, X., Hou, Q., & Li, H. (2018). Long-term trends in global
river flow and the causal relationships between river flow and ocean signals. Journal of
Hydrology, 563, 818–833. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2018.06.058.
Subramanian, A., Brown, B., & Wolf, A. T. (2012). Reaching across the waters: Facing the risks of
cooperation in international waters, directions in development; environment and sustainable
development. Washington, DC: World bank.
Timmerman, J. G. (2004). Incorporating user needs into environmental information systems. In
Environmental information in European transboundary water management (pp. 108–124).
London: IWA Publishing.
Timmerman, J.G., Bernardini, F., 2009. Adapting to climate change in transboundary water
management, perspective document for world water forum 5. Istanbul.
Timmerman, J. G., Ottens, J. J., & Ward, R. C. (2000). The information cycle as a framework for
defining information goals for water-quality monitoring. Environmental Management, 25, 229–
239. https://doi.org/10.1007/s002679910018.
Timmerman, J. G., Beinat, E., Termeer, C. J. A. M., & Cofino, W. P. (2010). A methodology to
bridge the water information gap. Water Science and Technology, 62, 2419–2426.
Timmerman, J. G., Beinat, E., Termeer, C. J. A. M., & Cofino, W. P. (2011a). Developing
transboundary river basin monitoring programmes using the DPSIR indicator framework.
Journal of Environmental Monitoring, 13, 2808–2818. https://doi.org/10.1039/C1EM10092K.
Timmerman, J. G., Koeppel, S., Bernardini, F., & Buntsma, J. J. (2011b). Adaptation to climate
change: Challenges for Transboundary water management, in: The economic, social and
political elements of climate change. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer.
Timmerman, J. G., Matthews, J., Koeppel, S., Valensuela, D., & Vlaanderen, N. (2017). Improving
governance in transboundary cooperation in water and climate change adaptation. Water Policy,
19, 1014–1029. https://doi.org/10.2166/wp.2017.156.
UNECE. 1992. Convention on the protection and use of transboundary water courses and international lakes. Helsinki.
UNECE, 2009. Guidance on water and adaptation to climate change (No. ISBN 9789211170108).
United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, Geneva.
UNECE. (2015). Policy guidance note on the benefits of Transboundary water cooperation
identification, assessment and communication. New York/Geneva: Convention on the Protection and Use of Transboundary Watercourses and International Lakes United Nations Economic
Commission for Europe.
UNECE. (2018). A nexus approach to transboundary cooperation. The experience of the water
convention. Geneva: United Nations Economic Commission for Europe.
UNECE/INBO. (2015). Water and climate change adaptation in transboundary basins: Lessons
learned and good practices (No. ECE/MP.WAT/45). United Nations Economic Commission for
Europe/International Network of Basin Organizations, Geneva.
UNECE/UNESCO. (2018). Progress on Transboundary Water Cooperation: Global Baseline for
SDG Indicator 6.5.2. United Nations Economic Commission for Europe and United Nations
Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, Geneva and Paris.
UNECE/UNISDR. (2018). Words into Action Guidelines. Implementation Guide for Addressing
Water-Related Disasters and Transboundary Cooperation. Integrating disaster risk management
with water management and climate change adaptation (No. ISBN: 978–92–1-117177-8).
Building Resilience Through Transboundary Water Resources Management
19
United Nations Economic Commission for Europe and United Nations Office for Disaster Risk
Reduction, New York and Geneva.
UN-Water. (2008). Transboundary waters: Sharing benefits, sharing responsibilities. Geneva:
Switzerland.
UN-Water. (2016). Towards a worldwide assessment of freshwater quality, policy and analytical
briefs. Geneva: Switzerland.
UN-Water. (2018). Progress on transboundary water cooperation: Global baseline for SDG indicator 6.5.2. UN-Water, United Nations Economic Commission for Europe and UNESCO International Hydrological Programme (IHP).
Ward, R. C., Loftis, J. C., & McBride, G. B. (1986). The “data-rich but information-poor” syndrome
in water quality monitoring. Environmental Management, 10, 291–297. https://doi.org/10.1007/
BF01867251.
Woodhill, J. (2004). Dialogue and transboundary water resources management: Towards a
framework for facilitating social learning, in: Environmental information in European transboundary water management (pp. 44–59). London: IWA Publishing.
World Bank. (2016). High and dry: Climate change, water, and the economy. Washington, DC:
World Bank.
WWAP. (2018). The United Nations world water development report 2018: Nature-based solutions.
Paris: WWAP (United Nations World Water Assessment Programme).
WWAP. (2020). The United Nations world water development report 2020: Water and climate
change. Paris: WWAP (United Nations World Water Assessment Programme).
Zeitoun, M., & Warner, J. (2006). Hydro-hegemony – A framework for analysis of trans-boundary
water conflicts. Water Policy, 8, 435–460. https://doi.org/10.2166/wp.2006.054.
Zeitoun, M., Cascão, A. E., Warner, J., Mirumachi, N., Matthews, N., Menga, F., & Farnum, R.
(2017). Transboundary water interaction III: Contest and compliance. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 17, 271–294. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10784-016-9325-x.