Water Diplomacy in Turbulent Times.

 

The concept of Water diplomacy  acknowledges that water management is “embedded in societal and political settings that go way beyond the water sector” and that, consequently, policymakers and diplomats assume a critical function in this regard. Water diplomacy can be defined as

the deliberative political processes and practices of preventing, mitigating, and resolving disputes over transboundary water resources and developing joint water governance arrangements by applying foreign policy means, embedded in bi- and/ or multilateral relations beyond the water sector and taking place at different tracks and levels”. While alternative definitions of water diplomacy emphasize different dimensions, scholars largely concur on a set of core aspect • Water diplomacy is a political process bringing together the different perspectives of stakeholders, also taking into account their senses of security, sovereignty, and national development priorities. Political processes must also consider the power relations between the various actors. While the broader political context exerts a significant influence on water diplomacy, the relationship is reciprocal, as water diplomacy can in turn facilitate regional interaction. • As a preventive approach it focuses on conflict prevention and mediation, thus representing one of the normative foundations of water diplomacy. Regular exchange between parties and dispute-resolution mechanisms can reduce tensions and prevent that they turn into violent conflict. • Through its integrative approach, water diplomacy goes beyond regional treaties and established mechanisms of transboundary cooperation among riparian governments, as it involves stakeholders from various levels and thematic sectors. This is also known as “multitrack diplomacy”, bringing together science, policy, and practitioners. It supports legitimacy and the development of resilient solutions. • Supporting cooperation is at the heart of water diplomacy processes. Identifying shared benefits and establishing trust between stakeholders are ultimate goals of this process. It rests on the stakeholders’ willingness to engage in cooperation aimed at fostering the sustainable and equitable allocation of shared water resources. • The technical dimension highlights the role of accurate and transparent data as a fundamental prerequisite for advancing water diplomacy. It further comprises the monitoring and evaluation of agreements concluded. Technical cooperation is diplomacy in practice and another important prerequisite for establishing trust. 

The interplay of these five key aspects is contingent upon the specific context and the conflict-triggering factors inherent to the system under consideration

Water diplomacy relies on a repertoire of context-specific tools and instruments on multiple levels, tailored to distinct forms of water stress and related conflicts, while accounting for the power relations, perspectives, and expectations of the actors involved. They can be grouped into four categories [see Table 1].

The first category encompasses “hard” legal and normative instruments, including binding treaties and joint institutions mandated with their implementation. Such legal frameworks are pivotal in fostering legitimacy, predictability, and accountability, thereby constituting a foundational basis for conflict prevention. Diplomatic and mediation instruments illustrate the integrative nature of water diplomacy, as they engage both third parties and a broad range of national stakeholders. They lay the ground for establishing trust between the different parties 116 and for integrating questions of equity and meaningful participation into the discussion. Next, technical activities provide an evidence base for informed decisions, they increase transparency, and through joint programmes they can also strengthen the sense of cooperation. Finally, tools for identifying mutual gains are to provide (economic) incentives for long-term cooperation. In practice, water diplomacy processes combine various tools and instruments.

Third parties — such as non-riparian states, intergovernmental organizations, or development agencies — play an important role in supporting disputing actors in the identification of joint solutions and the promotion of benefit-sharing. They contribute to embedding negotiations within international standards and principles, thereby strengthening compliance and legitimacy. By assuming mediating functions, they can facilitate trust-building among stakeholders, which constitutes a critical precondition for the willingness to compromise and reach agreement. In addition, third parties may provide technical expertise or financial resources, helping to generate reliable and unbiased data as a foundation for evidence-based negotiations. Beyond mediation, third parties may further contribute to long-term capacity building, institutional development, and the alignment of basin-level processes with broader global agendas such as climate adaptation and the SDGs. Their involvement can also mitigate power asymmetries between riparian states and ensure that weaker actors retain a voice in decision-making processes. The Middle East Council on Global Affairs, e.g., explicitly calls for a stronger multilateral engagement in the region of the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) to prevent further escalation regarding the management ofwater resources. However, there is reason to fear that the currently growing scepticism towards international cooperation may also weaken the potential role of international actors, organizations or states to act as mediators in deadlocked conflicts. The effectiveness of regional institutions is another key factor for successful water diplomacy processes. Several river basin organizations (RBOs) have been established in order to implement regional agreements and lead the processes for the sustainable and equitable management of transboundary water resources. There are more than 120 RBOs around the world, the International Commissions for the Protection of the Danube River and the Rhine, the Mekong River Commission, and the Nile Basin Initiative being prominent examples. The main task of RBOs is to foster cooperation and exchange of information and data between the riparian states and external partners. They establish rules of engagement, build capacities among national agencies, enforce and monitor the implementation of agreements, and manage emerging conflicts. RBOs thus play a pivotal role in advancing effective transboundary water management. However, their effectiveness is highly contingent upon their institutional and operational capacities. Empirical studies demonstrate that RBOs often struggle to fully realize their mandates due to deficiencies in technical expertise for data provision, limited legal authority and lack of enforcement mechanisms, as well as shortages of skilled personnel and sustainable funding. Moreover, political tensions and mutual mistrust among riparian actors may further constrain their performance and overall effectiveness.

The analysis highlights that water diplomacy holds considerable potential to mediate the intricate nexus between freshwater resources and conflict dynamics. Yet, the discernible rise in water-related disputes illustrates how intensifying pressures on freshwater systems, coupled with the current surge in protectionism and the erosion of multilateralism, are increasingly testing the limits of diplomatic engagement. While water diplomacy is typically associated with activities at the regional and subnational levels, the establishment of a robust global watergovernance architecture, anchored in binding norms and principles, may provide an essential guiding framework for diplomatic processes and enhance accountability in water-related negotiations. In this regard, global water governance and international water law constitute integral and indispensable dimensions of water diplomacy. Conversely, successful water diplomacy processes may feed back into the global water governance regime, thereby also contributing to greater coherence and effectiveness on the global level. A combined approach addressing water-related conflicts across global, national, and local scales can mediate divergent interests and, through clear regulatory frameworks and joint solutions, help mitigate unequal power relations among stakeholders.

The resumption of the UN Water Conferences with the next conference scheduled for December 2026 provides a strong momentum to strengthen water diplomacy, i.e. through the following means: 

• Do not leave water problems only to water departments: Complexity must be embraced, when dealing with challenges regarding the distribution of scarce water resources, particularly in conflict-prone settings. Although water management entails technical dimensions requiring special- 119 ized expertise, it is fundamentally conditioned by political and social factors. Achieving sustainable solutions therefore necessitates comprehensive political responses that integrate social, cultural, environmental, and economic considerations. There are no easy fixes for complex problems. 

• Strengthen coherence of global water governance: The upcoming UN Water Conference in 2026 should seek to strengthen coherence and accountability in global water governance, thereby reinforcing the effectiveness of the existing governance architecture and addressing prevailing trends of declining cooperation and the securitization of water resources at the national level. Due to the cross-cutting nature of water and the increasing urgency of the water challenge, silo thinking must be ended and coherence with other global processes must be strengthened. Considering the severe impacts of climate change on global water resources, this call for coherence refers particularly to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Paris Agreement. The international community must support the Special Envoy in her challenging task of strengthening overall global coordination on water issues. 

• Third-party engagement can make a difference: Due to the global implications of the water crisis, it should be in the interest of the international community to support processes aimed at improving cooperation, especially in conflict-prone settings. Such support is particularly important considering the key role of often underequipped river basin organizations