Bridging Divides: Water Diplomacy as a tool for conflict Transformation.

Although water is of vital importance for livelihoods and for economic and social development, roughly one quarter of mankind still lacks access to safe water services. Global water resources are under severe stress due to increasing demands and reduced availability and quality. In combination with social, political, and economic factors, water stress may trigger intra- and interstate conflicts. Water diplomacy is a promising concept for addressing the linkages between water and conflict, as it takes an inclusive and cooperative approach, aiming to not only contribute to water-related issues, but rather focussing on wider goals related to stability, peace, development, and equity. Water diplomacy thus has the potential of counteracting the current global trends towards unilateralism, securitization, and water weaponization. This session analyses the benefits of water diplomacy, but also some of the challenges, which hamper its effective implementation. It also explores the interrelations between water diplomacy and the fragmented architecture of global water governance, which thus far remains insufficiently equipped to manage the mounting pressures on freshwater resources and the associated potential for conflict.

Water is a basis for livelihoods and for economic activities around the world: people need access to safe drinking water for survival, agriculture is the largest user of freshwater globally, and many industries such as energy, mining, and construction rely heavily on water. In 2010, the United Nations (UN) General Assembly declared access to safe and clean drinking water and sanitation a human right, and it called on states and international organizations to provide resources, technology, and capacity building to help ensure universal access. This was taken up again 2015 in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, where Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 6 calls for “ensuring availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all”. In addition, water is also fundamental for achieving many of the other SDGs. Although the number of people with access to safe drinking water has risen steadily in recent decades, 2.1 billion people – roughly one in four people worldwide – still lacked safely managed drinking water services in 2024. Progress on SDG 6 is thus still significantly off-track. Global freshwater resources are under severe stress due to various factors: Demand for water is increasing, while availability and quality is shrinking. Population growth and rising living standards result in more people requiring access to larger quantities of water and food, industrialization and energy production also increase water consumption, and pollution through agricultural or industrial activities leaves water sources unsafe for human use or even completely unusable. Furthermore, many regions around the world already suffer from the impacts of climate change: flooding events occur more often, rainfall becomes unreliable, glaciers, which are important sources of freshwater, melt and, due to rising temperatures, evaporation increases. Shifts in water availability can put pressure on people’s livelihoods, as they may need to spend more time collecting water or face higher costs to purchase safe drinking water. It affects food security and may also cause a higher prevalence of waterborne diseases. Furthermore, it may lead to aquifer depletion and reductions in the provision of ecosystem services. The topic also includes a North-South component, as many countries in the Global South with already limited water resources produce water-intensive agricultural and other goods for export to countries in the Global North. This so-called “virtual water” may further contribute to water scarcity in the producing regions. This session examines how mounting pressures on water resources can act as catalysts for conflict and argues that the current architecture of global water governance remains insufficiently equipped to address both present and future challenges. While water diplomacy – conceived as a comprehensive, multi-level diplomatic approach – offers significant potential to engage with the complex interlinkages between water and conflict, its effective implementation continues to face considerable obstacles. The session concludes by outlining key areas of action for the international community, with particular reference to the forthcoming United Nations Water Conference in 2026.

Water is mobile. It crosses borders and must be shared between two or more countries: 90% of the world’s population has common resources with neighbouring countries, and there are 313 transboundary rivers and lakes around the world (UNECE/UNESCO/UN-Water 2024: 6). In addition, there are 468 known transboundary aquifers.4 In total, 153 countries share at least one water basin with one or more other countries. Ismail Serageldin, then Vice-President of the World Bank, stated in 1995 that “the wars of the next century will be about water”.5 Today, 30 years later, there is broad consensus within the scientific community that water stress hardly ever leads directly to violent conflict (Michel 2020: 6). Most scholars emphasize that historically parties are more likely to value the merits of cooperation and decide to cooperate on scarce water resources than to start a conflict (Hussein et al. 2023: 1). Even if there are serious diplomatic tensions between two countries, they may still decide to cooperate on water resources. However, recent data suggests that the number of conflicts, both at the inter- and intrastate level, has been rising globally in recent years [see Figure 1].

 62% of the conflicts registered for 2023 were sub-national, while only 38% involved two or more countries. Noticeably, the distribution of water-related conflicts varies widely between different world regions [see Figure 2].

 Central factors for the high prevalence of conflicts are clashes between farmers and pastoralists in Sub-Saharan Africa, increasing violence in the Middle East (Israel/Palestine, Yemen, Syria, Iraq) and in India, combined with high and increasing levels of water stress. The likelihood of water serving as a conflict driver is heightened in regions already affected by latent tensions, where such changes may operate as a “threat multiplier”. Changes in water resources seldom translate directly into violent conflict; rather, their impact is mediated by societal capacities to address water-related challenges. Variations in water availability or access unfold within complex socio-environmental, technological, political, legal, and cultural contexts. Critical determinants include the dependence of key economic sectors – such as agriculture – on water, the degree of competition over scarce resources, and the technical capacity to augment supply.

Water conflicts may arise from different pathways that mostly lead to changes in access to water or in the available quantity or quality of water. The availability of usable water may be triggered by environmental pressures such as reduced rainfall or saline intrusion, but also by changing demands from agriculture, urbanization or industry. Access to decision-making structures significantly shapes the degree of access to water resources. The occurrence of disasters such as floods, when coupled with limited resilience, can constitute additional conflict-trigger-ing factors. Moreover, state-driven interventions may significantly affect water availability and access — for instance, through the construction of large-scale infrastructure projects such as dams or irrigation schemes that alter downstream water flows, or through the insufficient provision of adequate water and sanitation services. The functionality of state institutions and their ability to guarantee equitable access across all societal groups are central in shaping conflict dynamics. Unequal access to water exposes, reinforces, and amplifies existing power asymmetries. These pathways rarely operate in isolation; rather, it is the interplay of multiple factors that precipitates conflicts within a specific context.

The use of water either as a strategic means of increasing pressure on opposing parties or as a weapon, by both state and non-state actors is one conflict pathway, which has received increasing attention in recent years. This so-called “water weaponization” in armed conflicts has increased significantly since the early 21st century and has become particularly evident in recent conflicts in Gaza, Ukraine, and Syria. In Kurdish-controlled northeast Syria, which already suffered from years of severe droughts, Turkish authorities interrupted water supply and electricity for more than one million people, leading to the outbreak of diseases such as cholera. Deliberate attacks on water infrastructure by the Israeli government during the Israeli-Palestinian conflict have been intensively addressed by several UN organizations in recent years. Water weaponization “can occur in multiple ways, namely by directly targeting water-related infrastructure, such as dams, dykes, and WASH facilities, and by contaminating water as a natural good through the use of poison or disease-causing agents”. It has long-term effects on the environment and on health, e.g. through the spread of waterborne diseases or the destruction of health care infrastructure. Although the weaponization of water is a crime under international humanitarian law, it is increasingly accepted by countries as an appropriate means of warfare, either by themselves or by their allies. Lopes and Gama emphasize the mimicry effect, according to which the demonstrated efficacy of weaponizing water can function as a template for its replication in other contexts. Thus, “the increased practice of weaponizing water may contribute to further exacerbate ongoing violent effects”. Current global dynamics – marked by the resurgence of geopolitics and unilateralism, and the crisis of multilateralism – profoundly shape the management of scarce water resources among states sharing transboundary basins. Water is increasingly framed as an issue of national security rather than as a vital resource to which universal access must be ensured. The securitization of water may seriously compromise cooperation between countries competing for resources, but it can also have significant negative impacts on distribution equity within a country. The construction of the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam without adequate consultation of downstream countries may serve as a recent example for the securitization of water resources. Egypt has articulated the construction of the dam as a threat to its national water security. The Indus Water Treaty between India and Pakistan has survived severe political tensions and wars between the signatories. However, in response to a terrorist attack in Kashmir in April 2025, India temporarily suspended the treaty, employing it as a strategic instrument to exert pressure on Pakistan. This development reflects a broader trend: already in 2016.

India had reframed water from the Indus as a matter of national security. Water securitization goes hand in hand with power asymmetries as a decisive factor for access to water resources. When treating water first and foremost as a matter of national security, powerful states marginalize the relevance of water for livelihoods and development to the detriment of less powerful actors. Power is of relevance within countries and societies, but also at the international level, e.g. between upstream and downstream countries or between larger, economically more powerful countries and their smaller neighbours. The willingness to cooperate and mutually find viable solutions is declining, especially in already tense, conflictual situations. Given the close interlinkages between water and conflict, the growing scarcity of water resources not only undermines livelihoods and hampers social and economic development but also poses risks to regional stability and may jeopardize peace and cooperation, particularly in fragile contexts; it thus turns into an issue of global concern. It is therefore in the interest of the international community to advance a more effective framework of global water governance capable of addressing the escalating challenges. Yet, current governance structures remain insufficiently equipped to fulfil this role.

A coordinated and comprehensive water governance architecture can provide shared principles, norms, and institutions that help balance power asymmetries, enhance predictability, and build trust among riparian states. They do not only provide the rules to which the signatory states commit themselves, but the principles enshrined in international frameworks also constitute an important reference point for negotiations between parties in transnational river basins. According to the World Bank, it is still the case that “more than 2/3 of transboundary rivers lack any type of cooperative framework”, and only 43 out of 153 UN member states with transboundary waters have most of these water bodies covered by operational agreements. In such cases, international law assumes a central 111 role. A  comprehensive and robust international legal framework is indispensable for fostering cooperation, preventing disputes, and ensuring the sustainable management of shared water resources in the face of escalating pressures. However, to date the global water governance structure is fragmented and not very coherent and effective. Although a range of regimes and institutions addressing water operate at both global and regional levels [see Figure 3 for an overview], water governance continues to lack a robust global architecture comparable to that developed for issues such as climate change or biodiversity, notwithstanding its profound global significance. Most of the existing structures operate on a voluntary basis and thus depend on the political will of national governments or international institutions to cooperate. Two UN conventions provide international legal guidance, directly related to water: the “Convention on the Law of the Non-navigational Uses of International Watercourses” – UN Watercourses Convention (UNWC) – from 1997 and the “Convention on the Protection and Use of Transboundary Watercourses and International Lakes” – UNECE Water Convention – which was adopted in 1992, but only entered into force in 2016. Although both conventions constitute binding legal instruments that offer a valuable framework and normative orientation for addressing water-related conflicts, their enforcement mechanisms remain comparatively weak. The UNWC lacks an institutional body or secretariat; thus, implementation depends on the member states. Important actors, such as Ethiopia, Egypt, India, Pakistan, China, Turkey, and Brazil have not yet ratified the Convention. At the time of its entry into force, the convention was criticized as being already outdated, chiefly due to its limited consideration of environmental and human rights dimensions. The UNECE Water Convention only referred to Europe in the beginning, but it was opened to all UN member countries in 2016. Today, it is joined by 56 member states, still with a very strong focus on European countries6 and thus a low global significance. In addition to these water-specific conventions, water figures with varying degrees of prominence in other UN conventions and governance frameworks.

Since 2003, UN-Water has served as the coordinating mechanism for the water-related activities of more than 30 UN entities. While not being a UN agency in its own right but rather a coordination platform, it is mandated to collect and disseminate information, data, and best practices on water issues and to provide toolkits to support national planning processes. UN-Water is also mandated to promote coherence within the UN system and to ensure that water is recognized as a cross-cutting issue in domains such as climate change, disaster risk reduction, gender, and human rights. Overall, UN-Water is important in terms of coordinating, facilitating, and raising awareness on water-related issues, but due to its limited mandate it largely depends on voluntary contributions from other UN agencies. Thus, its influence and impact on a fragmented and siloed global water governance remains rather low. The first United Nations Water Conference was held in Argentina in 1977. Forty-six years later, in 2023, approximately 10,000 participants convened in New York for its second session. Its major formal outcome was the Water Action Agenda – a compilation of over 700 commitments pledged by governments, nongovernmental stakeholders and private actors, covering finance, projects, policies, innovation, and cooperation. However, only about 22% of the commitments made in the Water Action Agenda have quantitative targets, and often, clear financing options and timelines as well as monitoring mechanisms are missing. Despite the transboundary nature of water, only 12% of the commitments include cooperation across national borders or economic sectors. Furthermore, all pledges are voluntary, which further limits accountability. The appointment of a UN Special Envoy on Water in 2024 to raise the visibility of water as a cross-cutting issue is a step in the right direction; however, it remains to be seen what she can achieve in such a complex siloed setting with multiple interests of a multitude of stakeholders. The upcoming UN Water Conference in December 2026 is expected, in light of the outcomes and critiques of the 2023 conference, to focus particularly on the implementation of the measures agreed in 2023 and on the mobilisation of corresponding funding. Particularly civil society organizations call for a strong focus on equity and inclusivity, which goes beyond symbolism. Strengthening global water governance and its coherence are other important issues to be discussed. Parallel to these global developments, since the 1990s the growing pressure on global freshwater resources and the rise of water-related conflicts have strengthened the awareness that new approaches are needed at regional and national levels — approaches that move beyond the provision of technical solutions and explicitly recognize and address the complexity and diversity of conflict situations.