A new report published today by The Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) examining the critical threats to the world’s freshwater supplies as a result of global transboundary cooperation finds that the Transboundary river basins – which supply the world with half of its freshwater flows – are run by ineffective water management bodies.

The basins provide freshwater flows for over 40% of the world population, yet less than a third of them have joint water management bodies.

With over 50% of the world’s population expected to be living in water-scarce regions by the year 2050, the EUI’s Blue Peace Index studies the challenges and the potential for conflict that water basin regions face. Several regions, such as the Tigris-Euphrates River Basin, are at particular risk of escalating conflicts over scarce water resources.

The inaugural Blue Peace Index 2019 has been developed by The Economist Intelligence Unit with support from the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation.

The Index examines how well countries and basins manage their transboundary water resources, and highlights priority gaps to address and best practices policymakers and practitioners can learn from.

The Index says that there is a worrying absence of collaboration structures to govern these critical resources and warns that lack of co-operation can have considerable economic, social and environmental consequences.

Rising stress on global freshwater is posing significant challenges for agriculture, industry, energy generation, and domestic drinking and sanitation across the globe.

Less than 3% of the world’s water supply is freshwater, yet the demand for water continues to grow by approximately 1% per year. By 2050 the world’s growing demand for freshwater could put 45% of the world’s global GDP and 40% of its grain production at risk.

The index examines the extent to which countries and basins are managing their shared water resources in a sustainable, equitable and collaborative manner. In its first edition, the index analyses 24 countries across five transboundary river basins on 74 qualitative and quantitative indicators.

The gains of transboundary water co-operation vary from reduced flooding and drought and protected biodiversity through to enhanced energy security and optimisation of investments.

Key findings 

Key findings contained in the Index include:

Amazon River Basin: There are relatively strong water management institutions, low water stress and actively engaged stakeholders in the Amazon River Basin, on both a national and transboundary level, but it is challenged by a lack of co-ordinated investment programmes and needs to improve co-ordinated pollution control mechanisms.

Senegal River Basin: Strong institutions have been developed on the basis of a comprehensive cross-boundary agreement, but the Senegal River Basin suffers from a difficult natural environment, which jeopardises food security and access to local drinking water.

Tigris-Euphrates River Basin: This basin faces considerable challenges across all index areas. The political and environmental context is particularly challenging and has resulted in almost non-existent regional co-operation. This difficult environment has far-reaching consequences, challenging access to water and negatively impacting pollution control.

Mekong River Basin: Strong technical institutions have been developed to manage transboundary water in the Mekong River Basin but it lacks co-ordinated political decision-making. The absence of a single river management institution that includes critical upstream countries China and Myanmar presents significant challenges to sustainable water management in the basin.

Sava River Basin: This basin has seen strong co-operation mechanisms developed in a difficult post-conflict situation and it represents best practice in many of the transboundary water co-operation areas. Nevertheless, it still lacks comprehensive mechanisms to engage stakeholders and co-ordinate investment activities.

Water can be weaponised - but can also be a tool for co-operation

Matus Samel, lead author of the Blue Peace Index at The Economist Intelligence Unit, said:

“Water management and transboundary water co-operation can affect people’s fundamental rights and livelihoods. If we do not address these challenges, balancing the needs of different communities, individual disputes can evolve into long-term conflicts. Water can be weaponised but can also be a tool for co-operation, even in the most difficult contexts. The Blue Peace Index allows us to start conversations and keep this critical issue on the global agenda.”

For example, the Index says that in the wider dispute between India and Pakistan over the Kashmir region, water has been weaponised, with dam construction on the Ravi River being used by the Indian government as a reprisal for supposed Pakistani aggression in the contested territory. It also points out that while outright wars over water in the Tigris–Euphrates Basin have been rare, in recent times, state actors and extremist terrorist organisations have increasingly weaponised the power of water control in Iraq and Syria, seizing control of, or damaging, dams at Tabqa, Tishrin, Mosul and Fallujah.

Political will: water must move to top of the political agenda

The Index is also calling for water to be placed at the top of the political agenda, saying:

"The involvement of political decision-makers is necessary because whether increased water scarcity and environmental pressures trigger conflict, or driver cooperation, cannot be known ahead of time."

The Index highlights the fact the World Economic Forum’s 2019 Global Risks Report placed the water crisis as the fourth largest risk facing the world, after weapons of mass destruction, extreme weather, and climate change (both also closely linked to water).

According to the EIU. the experience of different basins, including the five assessed in the report, shows that the most effective transboundary arrangements link directly to high-level political officials, have independent status, and are capable of regulating specific decisions.

In addition it suggests that political will can also be supported through “issue linkage”, whereby the benefits of water cooperation are framed with reference to other priorities such as political security and a business-friendly investment climate, or the provision of energy.

According to Greg Shapland, Associate Fellow, Middle East and North Africa Programme, Chatham House, who provided input to the the report, agreements could also be twinned with other objectives, such as “oil-for-water” arrangements, which could benefit Iraq and Turkey, for instance — each is rich in what the other lacks.

Similarly, Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan could revive a “coal-for-water” deal similar to one that existed when both countries were part of the Soviet Union.

Countries can also tie their shared water resources into wider diplomatic agreements, such as the Jordan’s 1984 peace treaty with Israel, which could be seen as a “recognition-for-water” deal.

The report says that one reason why water cooperation endures during geopolitical tensions, is precisely because the organisations managing it were not political entities which allowed stakeholders to continue to engage on technical matters.