Water Diplomacy as a Successful Tool for Environmental Peacebuildung

Water systems in conflict-affected regions are under increasing strain, driven in part by the impact of climate change. In conflict-affected regions, water infrastructure is often damaged or inaccessible, exposing already vulnerable populations to disease, displacement, and violence. Poor access to water in these settings also undermines food production and public health, compounding humanitarian crises. Conflict-induced water scarcity often leads to diminished agricultural output, which in turn deepens food insecurity, heightens tensions and undermines stability. Women and girls, in particular, face increased risks due to their disproportionate role in water collection and increased exposure to gender-based violence.

Rising temperatures, prolonged droughts, and erratic rainfall patterns are disrupting the availability and quality of freshwater worldwide. These changes threaten livelihoods, fuel displacement, and heighten the risk of conflict, particularly in regions already grappling with food insecurity and weak governance. This article explores how water management can contribute to peace by examining the concept of environmental peacebuilding, and highlighting strategies that help transform water from a source of risk into a foundation for cooperation.

What is environmental peacebuilding?

 Environmental peacebuilding refers to the ways in which managing water, land, and natural resources, can help prevent, reduce, or recover from conflict. It emphasizes the potential for environmental cooperation to build trust, strengthen institutions, and promote dialogue between groups, especially in fragile or politically unstable settings. Environmental peacebuilding goes beyond traditional peacebuilding, applying not only to situations of active violence, but also to post-conflict recovery, latent tensions, and areas at risk of instability.

Importantly, environmental peacebuilding is not limited to international diplomacy or formal peace agreements. It also takes place at local and national levels, such as when rural communities collaborate on shared water access or when cities invest in inclusive water governance to prevent unrest. Peace, in this context, can be understood as a continuum, from a pause in fighting to deeper, lasting conditions where violent conflict becomes unthinkable.

Water as a catalyst for peace

Water is a unique resource within environmental peacebuilding. It is essential to life, often shared across political and social boundaries, and closely tied to economic development and security. These characteristics make it both a potential flashpoint for conflict and an entry point for cooperation. Rivers, lakes, and aquifers often span borders, necessitating collaboration between nations, regions, or communities. This interdependence can foster dialogue even in otherwise tense relationships. In some cases, water negotiations have continued even during active conflict, acting as a rare space for sustained communication. For example, despite hostilities, cooperation over the Jordan River between Israel and Jordan persisted, and during the Syrian civil war, technical-level discussions on the Euphrates River continued between Iraq and Syria.

Importantly, water-related cooperation can also support broader peacebuilding objectives. Agreements over shared water use may evolve into more comprehensive partnerships, encouraging trust, capacity-building, and stronger institutions. Well-functioning water projects require engagement by local stakeholders. This can give rise to inclusive platforms for participation that help bridge social divides and reduce grievances. Such efforts are most effective when they consider not only infrastructure and governance, but also the social dynamics at play.

In conflict-affected settings, water initiatives must be carefully designed to build cross-group trust, foster empathy, and strengthen shared responsibility. When done well, these efforts create not only technical solutions but social foundations for long-term peace. In northern Kenya, for example, water committees that include members from historically rival pastoralist groups have helped reduce tensions by ensuring fair water access and encouraging regular dialogue. These locally led efforts not only manage water resources more effectively but also strengthen cooperation and mutual understanding.

At the same time, mismanaged water systems can contribute to instability, particularly where access is unequal (e.g. urban-rural), infrastructure is fragile, and climate stress is high. Therefore, investing in cooperative, equitable water governance is not only a development priority but a security imperative. By transforming a potentially contentious issue into a shared interest, water management offers one pathway toward more stable and peaceful societies.

Discrepancies between national, regional, and local realities must also be acknowledged. National or transboundary water agreements often set high-level principles, but their success relies heavily on local implementation and community engagement. If treaties fail to reflect local needs or realities, they risk undermining their intended peacebuilding benefits.

Conversely, grassroots initiatives like rotational water-sharing schemes can complement and reinforce broader policy goals, providing legitimacy and stability from the bottom up. Bridging these scales through coherent multilevel governance, where community-level concerns inform national and regional strategies, can enhance both peacebuilding and climate resilience. This requires inclusive institutions, fair representation, and transparency, particularly in fragile contexts where power asymmetries may otherwise exclude vulnerable groups.

Cooperation around water is more common than conflict

While concerns over water conflict are common, the reality is that outright violence over water is extremely rare. Most water-related disputes, whether between countries or within communities, are resolved through negotiation and cooperation. This insight emerges from decades of research showing that cooperative water events outnumber conflictual ones. At the international level, shared rivers and lakes have often been sites of diplomacy. For example, despite longstanding tensions in the region, countries along the Nile and the Indus rivers have maintained communication and cooperation over water. Even during periods of conflict, water negotiations have continued, serving as vital platforms for dialogue, even as challenges remain.

In the Mekong Basin, despite geopolitical tensions between upstream and downstream states, local communities have engaged in long-running cooperation. Shared experiences with floods and droughts have encouraged transboundary knowledge sharing. These initiatives have not only supported community resilience but also fostered a cross-border network focused on water justice and peace. Another example is the Senegal River Basin, where riparian countries, Mali, Mauritania, and Senegal, created a joint institution (OMVS - Organisation pour la mise en valeur du fleuve Sénégal – Senegal River Basin Development Authority) to manage the river collectively. Despite political tensions, this cooperation has facilitated joint infrastructure projects, improved food and energy security, and maintained peaceful water-sharing. It shows how regional governance institutions can support both development and peace, particularly when they share benefits equitably and involve national and local actors.

Water diplomacy, through formal treaties, informal dialogue, or technical cooperation, has proven to be a consistent peacebuilding tool. When managed inclusively and transparently, water can shift from being a source of competition to a shared foundation for peace.

It’s time to invest in water for peace

Water is not only essential for life and development, but also a powerful enabler of peace. Inclusive and sustainable water management can reduce tensions, strengthen institutions, and help communities and nations rebuild trust. The evidence is clear: cooperation around water is more common than conflict, and with the right policies in place, it can serve as a foundation for long-term stability. By integrating peacebuilding into water strategies, investing in equitable governance, and supporting inclusive dialogue, they can turn water from a potential risk into a shared resource for peace.

The time to invest in water for peace is now. As water demand rises with climate change and population growth, the need for better water governance becomes ever more urgent. Water management can play a constructive role in peacebuilding, especially when it is inclusive, forward-looking, and sensitive to local dynamics. These policy recommendations could help to unlock the potential of water as a peace building tool:

• Integrating peacebuilding into water governance strategies can support national and local policies to be more responsive to conflict dynamics and promote social cohesion.

• Inclusive, multi-level decision-making, with active participation by local communities, women, youth, and marginalized groups, can strengthen trust and support equitable outcomes.
• Cross-sector cooperation holds potential for building long-term partnerships, particularly if environmental, humanitarian, and peacebuilding actors coordinate their efforts across shared water systems.
• Investments in conflict-sensitive water infrastructure should engage marginalized groups early in project planning, distribute services based on need rather than political influence, and design infrastructure that is accessible and beneficial to all community members.
• Strengthening institutional capacity and improving data systems can support more accountable governance, as well as adaptive planning in the face of climate stress.
• Long-term and integrated approaches to water and peacebuilding are likely to be more effective than short-term humanitarian responses alone.

Despite its promise, environmental peacebuilding remains underutilized in international policy. In many cases, political constraints, lack of institutional capacity, or competing priorities limit its full implementation. Moreover, the translation of academic insights into policy practice is not always straightforward: what works in theory is often reshaped by context, interests, and feasibility on the ground. This makes it sometimes difficult to align local initiatives with national strategies, foster inclusive governance, and prioritize equity at every level of decision-making.