Water’s Unique Biophysical Characteristics
Sustainable Water Management Should Flow With Water
Following the framework illustrated in this article, we first start with exploring the unique biophysical features of water and it may change how we think about and interact with water.
Water exists in different states and forms and traverses human constructed ‘borders’.
Naturally, water exists in different states, namely solid, liquid, and gas. Water also exists in different forms, namely groundwater, river, lake, soil, etc. Aquifers usually span continents and constitute our planet’s significant storage freshwater reserve (Bhaduri et al., 2016). Groundwater systems, rivers, and lakes can stretch across human imagined borders, making it difficult to determine whose jurisdiction the water flows under. An example is the Mekong Basin. China’s Yunnan Province is located in the upper part of the Mekong Basin and any construction or development in this portion could greatly negatively impact countries located downstream. Compounded with China’s augmented power in the region, it is near impossible for any transboundary organisation like the Mekong River Commission to sway China’s decisions, making downstream countries helpless to China’s potential whims and fancies. (Gajaseni, Heal, and Edwards-Jones, 2006: 50)
Different biophysical states and forms of water may be managed if there is an understanding of which countries are users and stewards of that water. Rogers and Hall (2003) point out that hydro-geographical boundaries, such as river basins, make it easier to determine which actors should co-manage. In the Yunnan example, the Mekong River Commission, an inter-governmental organisation established in 1995, operates only between the governments of Cambodia, Laos, Thailand, and Vietnam (Gajaseni, Heal, and Edwards-Jones, 2006). China is not in the Commission despite being a part of the river basin. The challenge is that China holds more economic and political power than the four other countries. A multi-scalar solution may help level the playing field in that local and regional governments, instead of the national governments, in each country should co-manage the Commission.
Water picks up and carries whatever dissolves within it.
Another unique natural characteristic of water is its solvency and movement across landscapes, aquifers, and the water cycle. As a natural solvent, water picks up chemicals, hormones, and nutrients, and transports them throughout living organisms as a life-sustaining substance. Unfortunately, it also means that water transports agricultural chemicals, waste products, and other pollutants across surface and groundwater systems. This mobility results in unintended environmental impacts, as pollution spreads beyond its source, affecting ecosystems and human populations far from the point of origin (Falkenmark, 1997).
Managing these transboundary effects requires cooperative governance structures, as seen in the International Joint Commission (IJC) between the U.S. and Canada and the International Commission for the Protection of the Danube River (ICPDR), which has successfully coordinated policies across multiple European nations (Wolf et al., 2010: 198, 206). However, even with structured agreements, governance can be complicated by differences in political systems, such as in the Guaraní Aquifer region, where Brazil and Argentina’s federal systems create challenges in aligning policies with the unitary governments of Uruguay and Paraguay (Wolf et al., 2010: 210). Addressing the challenges of water’s mobility and solvency requires strong institutional frameworks that facilitate cross-border collaboration.
The concept of ‘waterscape’ highlights the socio-political dimensions of water governance, emphasizing that water flows are shaped by power relations and economic structures rather than merely physical geography (Budds & Hinojosa, 2012: 124). Given the unique natural characteristics of water in transboundary contexts, effective governance requires institutional frameworks that facilitate communication, policy coordination, and equitable resource distribution across borders. According to Gooch, Stålnacke, and Roll (2006), there is a significant need for comparative policy science studies to promote efficient water management planning. Their review of transboundary water basins in Europe revealed a lack of developed and comprehensive research and analysis on the implementation of water management policies. They emphasised the importance of developing the organisational and institutional frameworks necessary for implementing EU water policies.
In the context of transboundary water management, the political dimension cannot be overlooked. Unlike water management within a single state, managing shared water resources involves various governments with distinct political, economic, historical, and cultural interests. This complexity requires political will from all riparian countries for the successful initiation and continuation of co-operation. To address this, governments must effectively collaborate by establishing formal arrangements and clear procedures for transboundary cooperation. These arrangements should define the roles and responsibilities of both governments and stakeholders in implementing the Water Framework Directive (WFD) in shared waters. (Gooch, Stålnacke, and Roll, 2006)
Another crucial aspect that Gooch, Stålnacke, and Roll (2006) discuss is the need to address disparities in water management competencies between countries. The MANTRA-East project highlighted significant gaps between Estonia and Russia in areas such as administrative structures, norms, standards, and funding for water protection measures. These differences create challenges for the transnational implementation of initiatives like the WFD, particularly in shared waters like Lake Peipsi.
I reside in a country where Medium’s partner program does not reach, so I cannot receive any financial credit for my work published on Medium. I spend many hours researching, writing, thinking, editing. If you enjoy my work, please consider supporting me by ‘buying me a coffee’ here.
Bibliography:
Bhaduri, A., Bogardi, J., Siddiqi, A., Voigt, H., Vörösmarty, C., Pahl-Wostl, C., Bunn, S.E., Shrivastava, P., Lawford, R., Foster, S., Kremer, H., Renaud, F.G., Bruns, A. and Osuna, V.R. (2016). Achieving Sustainable Development Goals from a Water Perspective. Frontiers in Environmental Science, [online] 4(4). doi:https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2016.00064.
Budds, J. and Hinojosa, L. (2012). Restructuring and Rescaling Water Governance in Mining Contexts: The Co-Production of Waterscapes in Peru. Water Alternatives, 5(1).
Falkenmark, M. (1997). Society’s interaction with the water cycle: a conceptual framework for a more holistic approach. Hydrological Sciences Journal, 42(4), pp.451–466. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/02626669709492046.
Gajaseni, N., Heal, O.W. and Edwards-Jones, G. (2006). The Mekong River Basin: Comprehensive Water Governance. In: M. Finger, L. Tamiotti and J. Allouche, eds., The Multi-Governance of Water. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, pp.43–78.
Gooch, G.D., Stålnacke, P. and Roll, G. (2006). The way ahead for transboundary integrated water management. In: Integrated Transboundary Water Management in Theory and Practice. London, UK: IWA Publishing, pp.149–168.
Rogers, P. and Hall, A. (2003). Effective Water Governance. [online] Stockholm, Sweden: Global Water Partnership Technical Committee (TEC). Available at: https://www.gwp.org/globalassets/global/toolbox/publications/background-papers/07-effective-water-governance-2003-english.pdf.
Wolf, A.T., Newton, J.T., Hooper, V. and McWilliams, M. (2010). Case Studies of Transboundary Water Management: Fifteen Initiatives from Various Parts of the World. In: A. Earle, A. Jägerskog and J. Öjendal, eds., Transboundary Water Management: Principles and Practice. Oxon, UK: Earthscan.
