Water International

ISSN: 0250-8060 (Print) 1941-1707 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rwin20

Measuring transboundary water cooperation

within the framework of Agenda 2030: a proposal
for a revision of SDG Indicator 6.5.2

Marguerite de Chaisemartin

To cite this article: Marguerite de Chaisemartin (2020) Measuring transboundary water

cooperation within the framework of Agenda 2030: a proposal for a revision of SDG Indicator 6.5.2,
Water International, 45:1, 60-78, DOI: 10.1080/02508060.2019.1708659

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/02508060.2019.1708659

Published online: 24 Jan 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 26

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 1 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rwin20
WATER INTERNATIONAL
2020, VOL. 45, NO. 1, 60–78
https://doi.org/10.1080/02508060.2019.1708659

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Measuring transboundary water cooperation within the

framework of Agenda 2030: a proposal for a revision of SDG
Indicator 6.5.2
Marguerite de Chaisemartin
McGeorge School of Law, University of the Pacific, Sacramento, CA, USA

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Indicator 6.5.2 of the Sustainable Development Goals is defined as Received 2 February 2019
the ‘proportion of transboundary basin area with an operational Accepted 20 December 2019
arrangement for water cooperation’. While the establishment of KEYWORDS
such an indicator is most opportune and promising, its formulation International water law;
and calculation raise technical, scientific and legal questions. This transboundary water
article primarily focuses on these legal issues. This manuscript cooperation; transboundary
assesses the indicator, addresses some of its key shortcomings, waters; Sustainable
and offers a concrete and detailed proposal for an adjustment of Development Goals;
its methodology and reporting mechanism, ahead of the 2020 Indicator 6.5.2; Agenda 2030
revision of the SDG indicators by the Inter-agency and Expert
Group on SDG Indicators.

Introduction
Resolution A/RES/70/1, ‘Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable
Development’, was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on
25 September 2015 and included a set of 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs),
developed to replace the eight Millennium Development Goals, their timeframe having
just ended. One of the aims of the SDGs was to address some shortcomings of the
Millennium Development Goals, through a more comprehensive governance and peace-
building-oriented approach (Coonrod, 2014).
It is noteworthy that for the first time a water-and-sanitation goal (SDG 6) was
adopted: ‘ensuring availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for
all’. Even more remarkable, Target 6.5 (within SDG 6) is specifically dedicated to
‘implementing integrated water resources management (IWRM) at all levels, including
through transboundary cooperation as appropriate’.1 Progress towards Target 6.5 is to be
measured through two indicators, the ‘degree of IWRM implementation (0–100)’
(Indicator 6.5.1) and the ‘proportion of transboundary basin area with an operational
arrangement for water cooperation’ (Indicator 6.5.2).2 By using arrangements as
a measurement of transboundary cooperation and therefore acknowledging the role
legal instruments play in the protection, preservation and management of transboundary
freshwater resources, Indicator 6.5.2 emphasizes the importance of the law of interna-
tional watercourses.

CONTACT Marguerite de Chaisemartin mdechaisemartin@hotmail.com

© 2020 International Water Resources Association
 WATER INTERNATIONAL 61

While the establishment of an indicator of transboundary water cooperation is most

opportune and promising, its formulation and calculation raise some technical, scientific
and legal questions. It is the legal questions in particular that this article attempts to
address.3 After an overview and preliminary assessment of Indicator 6.5.2’s reporting
mechanism and of some of its major gaps, this manuscript makes a case for an adjustment
of Indicator 6.5.2, and then a concrete and detailed proposal for this adjustment, ahead of
the 2020 revision of the SDG Indicators by the Inter-agency and Expert Group on SDG
Indicators (IAEG-SDGs, 2016). This article considers several key shortcomings of the
indicator, including some important legal gaps, and formulates a precise proposal for
a revision of the indicator and its four ‘operationality’ criteria, which builds on two
existing indexes of transboundary water cooperation: the Transboundary Waters
Interaction Nexus (TWINS) (Zeitoun & Mirumachi, 2008), complemented by the
Transboundary Freshwater Dispute Database (TFDD, n.d.b). As we will see, the use of
both the TWINS framework and the TFDD database allows a much-needed harmoniza-
tion of Indicators 6.5.1 and 6.5.2 and a more accurate measurement of transboundary
water cooperation than the current methodology offers. The SDGs monitoring and
reporting process being a complex and long-term process, the aim of this proposed
revision is to address some of Indicator 6.5.2’s main gaps, while altering it as little as
possible.

Indicator 6.5.2’s reporting mechanism

Overview of the reporting mechanism and the relevance of an indicator of
transboundary water cooperation
The 17 SDGs offer a total of 169 targets to be achieved by 2030, and each target is
supported by one to three indicators, developed to help measure progress towards that
target. Indicators 6.5.1 (degree of IWRM implementation (0-100)) and 6.5.2 (proportion
of transboundary basin area with an operational arrangement for water cooperation) are
designed to help monitor countries’ progress towards Target 6.5’s objective to implement
IWRM at all levels, including through transboundary cooperation, by 2030.4
In developing such specific tools and measures of progress, the international commu-
nity appears to acknowledge the need to focus on better managing our precious fresh-
water resources, and thus to recognize that, as stated by the Organisation for Economic
Co-operation and Development (OECD, n.d.), the ‘water crisis’ is to a large extent
a management and governance crisis. It also acknowledges the significance of trans-
boundary freshwater resources around the world.
Indeed, most of the world’s freshwater resources are shared by two or more countries.
Around the world, 310 transboundary river basins (shared by two or more states) cover
47% of the globe’s land surface and host 45% of the world’s population (McCracken, 2017).
The Danube River basin, for example, is shared by 19 riparian countries (International
Commission for the Protection of the Danube River, n.d.). Some 592 transboundary
aquifers have been identified, and better technology may increase this number. Of these
592 transboundary aquifers, 226 are transboundary ‘groundwater bodies’, as defined by the
European Union Water Framework Directive (IGRAC & UNESCO-IHP, 2015).
62 M. DE CHAISEMARTIN

Given the importance of transboundary freshwater resources around the world, the
development of an indicator specifically dedicated to measuring operational cooperation
between riparians within such transboundary settings is most relevant. In 2015 the UN
Statistical Commission created the IAEG-SDGs, a group of UN member states charged
with developing, in consultation with observers (non-IAEG member states, regional and
international agencies and organizations) and other stakeholders, a global indicator
framework that would help measure progress towards the SDGs (IAEG-SDGs, n.d.).
The framework, which now includes 232 indicators (including Indicator 6.5.2), was
agreed on and annexed to UNGA Resolution A/RES/71/313, of 6 July 2017, on the ‘Work
of the Statistical Commission pertaining to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable
Development’. An initiative was launched under the umbrella of UN-Water in 2014 to
develop coherent and harmonized methodologies for the monitoring of the water-and-
sanitation-related SDG targets and indicators.5 Integrated Monitoring of Water and
Sanitation Related SDG Targets (also known as the Global Expanded Monitoring
Initiative, or GEMI) is an inter-agency mechanism between seven UN agencies: the
Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN, UN Economic Commission for Europe
(UNECE), UN Environment Programme (UNEP), UNESCO, UN Human Settlements
Programme (UN-Habitat), UNICEF, the World Health Organization and the World
Meteorological Organization, with financial support from Germany, Sweden,
Switzerland and the Netherlands (UN-Water, n.d.a).
During 2015–2016 and GEMI’s first phase, methodologies for each water indicator
were tested in collaboration with a few pilot countries. This allowed the methodologies to
be revised as necessary (UN-Water, 2017). The development of Indicator 6.5.2’s step-by-
step methodology was led by UNECE and UNESCO, the designated co-custodian
agencies for this indicator (UNECE & UNESCO, 2018, p. 20). It was classified in 2017
as a Tier II global indicator, meaning that it is ‘considered conceptually clear, has an
internationally established methodology and standards are available, but data are not
regularly produced by countries’ (IAEG-SDGs, 2017, p. 3).
To collect and compile data reported by countries, the two co-custodian agencies also
developed a reporting template to be sent to UN member states. Per the template,
a country computes the proportion of transboundary basin area in its territory that is
covered by an operational arrangement for water cooperation by ‘adding up the surface
area in a country of those transboundary surface water catchments and transboundary
aquifers (i.e. “transboundary basins”) that are covered by an operational arrangement
and dividing the obtained area by the aggregate total area in a country of all transbound-
ary basins (both catchments and aquifers)’ (UNECE & UNESCO, n.d., p. 5). To this end,
countries must identify all transboundary basins (surface and groundwater) of which it is
a riparian; calculate the surface area they cover within its territory; identify whether they
are covered, entirely or partly, by an operational arrangement; calculate the portion of the
transboundary basins’ area covered by operational arrangements; and calculate the ratio
of the area covered by operational arrangements to the area of the country covered by
transboundary basins (UNECE & UNESCO, 2017b, pp. 8–11). A graphic was developed
by the custodian agencies to help illustrate the calculation mechanism (UNECE &
UNESCO, 2017a, pp. 6–7).
The template provides further information on the scope of the indicator. An ‘arrange-
ment for water cooperation’ is defined as ‘a bilateral or multilateral treaty, convention,
 WATER INTERNATIONAL 63

agreement or other formal arrangement, such as memorandum of understanding,

between riparian countries that provides a framework for cooperation on transboundary
water management’ (UNECE & UNESCO, n.d., p. 5). The step-by-step methodology
explains: ‘agreements or other kind of formal arrangements may be interstate, intergo-
vernmental, interministerial, interagency or between regional authorities’ (UNECE &
UNESCO, 2017b, p. 3). For an arrangement to be considered ‘operational’ under
Indicator 6.5.2, it must meet four cumulative criteria (UNECE & UNESCO, 2017b, p. 3):

● there is a joint body, joint mechanism or commission (e.g. a river basin organiza-
tion) for transboundary cooperation;
● there are regular (at least once per year) formal communications between riparian
countries in form of meetings (either at the political or technical level);
● there is a joint or coordinated water management plan(s), or joint objectives have
been set;
● there is a regular exchange (at least once per year) of data and information.

Preliminary assessment of Indicator 6.5.2 and its methodology

The data submission form (UNECE & UNESCO, n.d.) sent to the 153 countries that share
transboundary freshwater resources (UNECE & UNESCO, 2018, p. 23) includes the template
for reporting on Indicator 6.5.2, together with an explanatory note, and is accompanied by
the step-by-step methodology. The reporting template has four sections: (I) calculation of
Indicator 6.5.2; (II) information on each transboundary basin or group of basins; (III) general
information on transboundary water management at the national level; and (IV) final
questions. While Section I was developed specifically for the global IAEG-SDGs reporting
process and contains the definitions and calculation indications for Indicator 6.5.2 already
mentioned, Sections II, III and IV were developed based on a questionnaire used to monitor
progress on transboundary cooperation and implementation of the 1992 Convention on the
Protection and Use of Transboundary Watercourses and International Lakes (UNECE Water
Convention, 1992) (UNECE & UNESCO, n.d.).
Section I asks countries to report on the computation of the indicator, while Sections
II to IV ask countries to report on the four cumulative criteria. Sections II to IV are very
comprehensive and would provide valuable information on the content and implemen-
tation of transboundary water arrangements worldwide – but because it is linked to the
UNECE Water Convention reporting mechanism and is not included in the computation
of the indicator, it is uncertain whether all countries will be reporting under those
sections, therefore running the risk of leaving out of the official reporting, data on the
fulfillment of the four criteria. A better distribution in the questionnaire between all four
sections, allowing countries to report valuable information on the four operationality
criteria under Section I, would avoid this risk.
The step-by-step methodology indicates that ‘these criteria do not have to be
embedded in the agreement/arrangement but should be happening in practice’
(UNECE & UNESCO, 2017b, p. 4). As discussed in the next section, such an approach
may be difficult to assess and measure, and increases the risk of inconsistency in the
interpretation by countries of ‘arrangements’ and the four operationality criteria.
Inconsistencies in data availability and interpretation have also been reported (UNECE
64 M. DE CHAISEMARTIN

& UNESCO, 2018, p. 5) relating for example to the calculation of the indicator and
surface areas concerned, or to the nature and delineation of the basins (e.g. the difference
in definition of a transboundary aquifer or groundwater body). Finally, Indicator 6.5.2 is
constructed as a threshold, whereas Indicator 6.5.1 is constructed as a scale (0–100),
though they both serve the same target for the implementation of IWRM at all levels.
Since these two indicators are combined to monitor progress towards Target 6.5,
harmonizing their calculation methods could help in the measurement of that progress.
An interesting and valuable preliminary technical assessment of Indicator 6.5.2’s
calculation was carried out by McCracken (2017). Her main conclusions point to several
limitations of the indicator similar to the ones described above and later in this study,
relating to the inconsistency of some definitions, the binary and procedural aspects of the
criteria, the spatial data accessibility or development, and the survey (McCracken, 2017,
p. 65). In the Indicator 6.5.2 reporting, transboundary basins are understood to include
river basins, lake basins and aquifers. But in the Section I calculation, the data are
disaggregated by surface water and groundwater resources; according to the methodol-
ogy, this will allow a better overview of existing efforts by countries over each of these
resources and of efforts remaining to be made (UNECE & UNESCO, 2017b). It will be
interesting to have more insight into cases reported where groundwater resources are
included in the scope of bilateral or multilateral surface water arrangements.
Indicator 6.5.2 is intended to show operational, functional cooperation. It is therefore
a global indicator that hopes to look at the enforcement, implementation and compliance
rather than solely at the drafting of the treaty. This is a particularly interesting approach,
but, as we will see in the next section, it is difficult to report and to measure. The indicator
will provide the first self-reported overview of the status of operational arrangements for
transboundary water management worldwide. This is a unique opportunity to receive
feedback on the reality on the ground, to collect data from the countries themselves and
hear their testimony as to how transboundary water cooperation operates for them and
their co-riparians. It is even more exceptional as it is a 15-year exercise, and 12 years still
remain. As of April 2018, the custodian agencies had received 107 responses out of the
153 countries to which the data submission form had been sent. The results, published in
summer 2018 (UNECE & UNESCO, 2018), provide valuable insights into the progress on
reporting for Indicator 6.5.2 and support the assessment of gaps identified in the
methodology and questionnaire for the upcoming review process.6

Adjusting Indicator 6.5.2, ‘proportion of transboundary basin area with an

operational arrangement for water cooperation’
The ‘operationality’ criteria and a reflection on certain legal issues of Indicator 6.5.2
Indicator 6.5.2, its methodology and its reporting template raise a number of legal issues,
which this article addresses in the next two sections. As mentioned, the step-by-step
methodology requires the four criteria to ‘be happening in practice’ (UNECE &
UNESCO, 2017b, p. 4). This suggests that operationality refers to an agreement being
functional, in that it enables transboundary cooperation between riparian countries. The
Nubian Sandstone Aquifer System (NSAS) is one of the transboundary basins that seems to
satisfy the indicator’s four criteria for ‘operationality’. One of the largest fossil aquifer
 WATER INTERNATIONAL 65

systems in the world, it is shared by Chad, Egypt, Libya and Sudan. In 1989 Egypt and Libya
agreed to establish a Joint Authority for the study and development of the NSAS (Stephan,
2013); in 1992, the Constitution of the Joint Authority for the Study and Development of
the Nubian Sandstone Aquifer Waters was adopted by both countries, and they were joined
by Sudan in 1996 and Chad in 1999 (Stephan, 2013). The Constitution establishes the HQ
of the Joint Authority in Tripoli, Libya, and is complemented by two additional arrange-
ments on monitoring and data sharing from 2000 (International Waters Governance, n.d.).
According to its Constitution, the Joint Authority can collect data, develop common
policies and programmes, support capacity-building cooperation and further study of the
aquifer and environmental impacts of its development, and ration the consumption of the
aquifer waters (International Waters Governance, n.d.), which corresponds to the first
criterion of Indicator 6.5.2, the existence of ‘a joint body, joint mechanism or commission
(e.g., a river basin organization) for transboundary cooperation’. The Constitution also
provides, among other things, that a board of directors, consisting of three directors per
riparian country, meets ‘once every four months’ (International Waters Governance, n.d.).
The second criterion, ‘regular (at least once per year) formal communications between
riparian countries in form of meetings’, seems met as well. In 2013, ministers of the four
countries signed a Strategic Action Programme (SAP) for the integrated management of
the NSAS (Stephan, 2013), which may correspond to the third criterion: ‘joint or coordi-
nated water management plan(s), or joint objectives have been set’. Finally, the Nubian
Sandstone Aquifer Regional Information System (NARIS) has been put in place between
the four countries to store and exchange data and information among them (International
Waters Governance, n.d.), which would comply with the fourth criterion, ‘regular exchange
(at least once per year) of data and information’. The NSAS thus appears to have an
‘arrangement for water cooperation’ that complies with all four ‘operationality’ criteria and
fits the requirements of Indicator 6.5.2, as seems to have been reported by the riparian
countries (UNESCO & UNECE, 2018).
It is interesting to note that external funding was particularly helpful for the development
of several of the technical studies on the aquifer, as well as for the adoption of its SAP in 2013
(Global Environment Facility, n.d.b). A new project funded by the Global Environment
Facility (n.d.a) is currently under review and aims to enable implementation of the SAP
through legal, policy and institutional reforms and to address scientific gaps identified in the
SAP, to support rational and equitable integrated management, socio-economic development
and the protection of the ecosystem and resources of the NSAS in the Nubian countries.
Thus, this new project’s objective is precisely to enable the operationality of the cooperative
framework that is in place. Therefore, even though the NSAS cooperation mechanism
appears to fit the requirements of Indicator 6.5.2, it seems reasonable to ask whether these
criteria are the most accurate to measure the level of operationality to enable IWRM at the
transboundary level. Also, sustainable financing of a transboundary cooperative mechanism
is key to its proper functioning (Deutsche Gesellschaft für internationale Zusammenarbeit,
2014) and is an important consideration to ensure operationality, but it is not accounted for
in measuring an arrangement’s operationality.
From the data submission form and the inclusion of Sections II to IV that are modelled
on a questionnaire to monitor progress on transboundary cooperation and implementation
of the UNECE Water Convention, it seems that the UNECE Water Convention can be
reported as an operational arrangement under Indicator 6.5.2 by its parties. A question
66 M. DE CHAISEMARTIN

arises then as to the inclusion within the reporting of Indicator 6.5.2 of the 1997 UN
Convention on the Law of the Non-navigational Uses of International Watercourses (UN
Watercourses Convention, 1997) and Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament
and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in
the field of water policy (EU Water Framework Directive, 2000).
The two global legal frameworks, the UN Watercourses Convention and, since 2013, the
UNECE Water Convention, both encourage countries to enter into one or more ‘water-
courses agreements’ and point to requirements for operational cooperation.7 The UN
Watercourses Convention provisions do not explicitly require regular meetings between
riparians. It is also not supported by a main governing body similar to the UNECE Water
Convention Meeting of the Parties or technical working groups. It may therefore be
considered not to comply with the four criteria for operationality and risks not being
reflected in the Indicator 6.5.2 reporting. It may eventually be argued that the UN
Watercourses Convention is ‘operational’ under Indicator 6.5.2 if some of its parties are
in practice implementing the four criteria of operationality, e.g. through one or more
bilateral or regional watercourse agreements. As mentioned, the step-by-step methodology
does not require that the four criteria of operationality are embedded in the arrangement
but that they are ‘happening in practice’ (UNECE & UNESCO, 2017b, p. 4). Leaving out of
a global indicator of transboundary water cooperation this ‘universal framework for
governing non-navigational uses of international watercourses’ (Boisson de Chazournes,
2013, p. 26) might be considered a shortcoming. As for the EU Water Framework Directive,
it may not be focused on transboundary cooperation, but member states are required to
collaborate towards the achievement of the directive’s environmental objectives in the case
of an international river basin district, with a view to managing the basin as a single
management unit (Articles 2.15 and 3). Coordination is encouraged with other member
states, as well as non-member states. Because it is not an arrangement specifically dedicated
to transboundary water cooperation and does not ‘provide a framework for cooperation on
transboundary water management’, the EU Water Framework Directive risks not being
included in the reporting under Indicator 6.5.2.
Finally, an arrangement for water cooperation that is not yet in force will also probably not
be reported under Indicator 6.5.2. This is understandable given the requirements of the
methodology, but it leaves out of the reporting examples of cooperation mechanisms that
may be noteworthy. Even if not yet in force, such examples showcase transboundary
cooperation, a certain level of collaboration between riparian countries to achieve
a negotiated agreement, and progress towards an operational arrangement for water coop-
eration. The 2014 Memorandum of Understanding for the Establishment of a Consultation
Mechanism for the Integrated Management of the Water Resources of the Iullemeden,
Taoudeni/Tanezrouft Aquifer System (MoU ITAS, 2014) shared by Algeria, Benin, Burkina
Faso, Mali, Mauritania, Niger and Nigeria has not yet entered into force. This consultation
mechanism is tasked with promoting and fostering cooperation between riparians, ‘based on
solidarity and reciprocity for a sustainable, equitable, coordinated and collaborative use of the
ITAS water resources’ (Article 3). The MoU offers detailed provisions on general principles of
international water law and as regards the organs and functions of the consultation mechan-
ism, which, interestingly, also has legal personality and power to contract, acquire and dispose
of property, receive gifts, loans and technical assistance, and sue and be sued (Article 6).
 WATER INTERNATIONAL 67

However, the MoU not being in force, this interesting arrangement may not be able to be
taken into account in the Indicator 6.5.2 reporting.

Adapting Indicator 6.5.2 to reflect mainstream opinion on transboundary water

cooperation
While it is very commendable to have set an ambitious indicator to help monitor
progress towards Target 6.5, it does not necessarily encompass all legal, institutional,
and governance tools that support the implementation of IWRM, and leaves out success-
ful mechanisms that do not qualify as ‘operational arrangements’. An ambitious indicator
that would allow flexibility, reflect the range of mechanisms available and measure water
cooperation at large would be more useful and reflective of the reality on the ground. It
would allow reporting to reflect both the progress of countries towards Target 6.5 and the
progress of countries towards developing operational arrangements. This proposal for
a revision is developed in the next section.
Surely the threshold put forward in Indicator 6.5.2 supports, through the existence
and functioning of an operational legal or institutional framework reflected in the four
cumulative criteria, enhanced cooperation and communication exchange that would help
prevent the development of disputes between riparians. Studies have indeed suggested
that ‘the likelihood and intensity of conflict within a basin increases as the magnitude or
amount of change in physical or institutional systems exceeds the capacity to absorb that
change’ (Yoffe, Wolf, & Giordano, 2003). As highlighted by McCaffrey (2019, p. 542), ‘the
key to the maintenance over time of a regime of equitable utilization is regular commu-
nication’, and the four cumulative criteria do stress other essential elements of an efficient
water cooperation regime. However, they are not sufficient and do not reflect certain
characteristics of mechanisms that have proven to be particularly efficient in the face of
changes in a basin affecting the needs and interests of the riparian states.
In the data submission form, countries do have the opportunity to report on other
aspects of their transboundary cooperation. However, substantive provisions are not
considered a criterion defining the operationality of an arrangement for transboundary
cooperation, because they are included in the Sections II to IV of the reporting template
(UNECE & UNESCO, n.d., pp. 8–18).8 As highlighted by Dinar (2009, p. 15), ‘coopera-
tion is not only fostered by the creation of institutions and regimes, but most impor-
tantly, depends on the kind of regime or agreements negotiated between the parties. The
agreement must be able to restructure the parties’ incentive to cooperate.’ Cooperation
has been defined as a ‘process by which States take coordination to a level at which they
work together to achieve a common purpose that produces additional mutual benefits
that otherwise would be unavailable with unilateral action’ (Leb, 2013, p. 1, citing
Zartman, 2008). Coordination is reflected in the selection of the four criteria, which
reflect to a lesser degree the parties’ common purpose and mutual benefits. Perhaps then
the inclusion of certain substantive provisions referring to the rights and obligations of
the parties, in particular references to basic principles and rules of the law of international
watercourses (e.g. the UN Watercourses Convention, ITAS), should be considered
a criterion.
‘Operationality’ may also need to reflect that a legal or institutional framework is
comprehensive in its scope and/or functions (e.g. ITAS). Rather, the four criteria put
68 M. DE CHAISEMARTIN

forward in Indicator 6.5.2 are more procedural, as they relate to the existence of a joint
structure and joint plan and to regular meetings and exchange of data between riparians.
Several scholars have pointed to the need for treaties to allow for flexibility in their
provisions, to cope with future uncertainty related to the quantity and availability of
freshwater resources, especially in the face of climate change (e.g. Leb, 2013, p. 226;
McCaffrey, 2003), a quality of treaties Indicator 6.5.2 would gain in reflecting. Similarly,
the fact that an arrangement ‘operates’ per Indicator 6.5.2 does not indicate the quality of
that operationality. It does not, for instance, indicate an arrangement’s financial resi-
liency, its ability to adapt to future uncertainties (e.g., the Treaty between Canada and the
United States of America relating to the Cooperative Development of the Water
Resources of the Columbia River Basin, 1961), its ability to endure in the face of
a dispute (e.g., the Indus Waters Treaty, 1960), or its resilience in the face of regional
geopolitical turmoil (e.g., the NSAS and the Indus Waters Treaty). Not only the four
‘operationality’ criteria but the definition itself of an ‘arrangement for water cooperation’
should be clarified, as discussed in the next section.
Around 120 river basin organizations have been put in place around the world
(TFDD, n.d.a). The display of this ‘institutionalization’ in freshwater governance
(Boisson de Chazournes, 2013, p. 176) should be encouraged by such a global indicator.
More than 600 international freshwater treaties were recorded between 1820 and 2007
(TFDD, n.d.d). But, as seen in the previous section, it is foreseeable that some of the
successful legal and institutional frameworks will not qualify as ‘operational arrange-
ments’ under Indicator 6.5.2 and be reflected in the global reporting, because they do not
meet the four cumulative criteria. Although the SDGs are not legally binding, govern-
ments were meant ‘to take ownership and establish national frameworks for the achieve-
ment of the 17 Goals’ (UN, n.d.); it would therefore be important to showcase greater
diversity in the types of legal and institutional frameworks put in place by countries for
the management and protection of transboundary watercourses.
Adapting Indicator 6.5.2 would also help make it a tool to promote water cooperation
and peaceful management of transboundary water resources. In the 1990s, senior officials
of the World Bank and the UN warned the international community of the threat of
future wars over freshwater resources.9 But UN secretary-general Kofi Annan declared in
2001 that ‘the water problems of our world need not be only a cause of tension; they can
also be a catalyst for cooperation.. . . If we work together, a secure and sustainable water
future can be ours.’ This statement coincides with the development of instrumental
research in the field, which supported the idea that cooperation is more often the
norm than conflict in interstate interactions over freshwater resources (TFDD, n.d.c).
This shift to the idea that water can be an incentive for cooperation and peace rather than
conflict has since been embraced by many member states. This was the stance adopted by
many countries in front of the UN Security Council during an open debate on
22 November 2016 on ‘Water and Peace’ organized under the presidency of Senegal
(U.N. Doc. S/PV.7818, 2016). This debate was the first opportunity for member states to
discuss the issue of water and peace within the framework of this UN organ, whose
primary responsibility is the maintenance of international peace and security (UN, 1945,
Article 24(1)).
Referring to UN secretary-general António Guterres’s latest report on
‘Peacebuilding and Sustaining Peace’ (U.N. Doc. A/72/707-S/2018/43, 2018),10
 WATER INTERNATIONAL 69

Coleman (2018) considers a central challenge to the success of UN’s approach to

sustaining peace, which he calls the ‘fear challenge’. Research by his team at
Columbia University suggests that the UN proposal should include the ‘promotion,
measurement, and tracking of those factors that foster peacefulness in societies – the
positive elements’, and recommends that the ‘systematic development and implemen-
tation of positive peace practices, goals and indices should be a priority of the inter-
national community[, without which] we will continue to focus on only “half the
peace”’ (Coleman, 2018).
Offering an ambitious indicator of operational water arrangements for transboundary
water management is laudable. But it is not certain that the four operationality criteria are
the most suited and reflective of operationality in practice. More importantly, offering
a truncated vision of success stories and peaceful interstate relations in transboundary
water management might be at odds with the objective of the indicator and might lead to
a shift in the international community’s view and approach to peaceful and successful
transboundary water management. For these reasons and legal considerations, a revision
of Indicator 6.5.2 would be welcome.

Proposal for adjustment of the Indicator 6.5.2 reporting mechanism

Existing transboundary water cooperation scales
Given the particularly rich literature available on interstate cooperation and interaction
over international watercourses, it is appropriate to discuss the possibility of adapting
Indicator 6.5.2 by examining whether one of the available and tested transboundary water
cooperation scales developed by experts in the field could fit such a global Indicator.
In testing and evaluating Indicator 6.5.2, McCracken (2017) develops and suggests an
interesting scale of cooperation, recognizing that even though transboundary water
cooperation involves steps, it does not require countries to achieve the final step, as
one type of cooperation can be considered more suitable than the last stage. Her proposal
is adapted from the Global Water Partnership Technical Committee background paper
by Tarlock (2015) and considers five types of cooperation: non-cooperation (no formal or
informal cooperative arrangement); preliminary cooperation (intent to cooperate
through e.g. signing of an agreement); issue cooperation (cooperative agreement on
specific issue(s), limited benefit sharing, unilateral act to prevent harm/resolve conflict);
emerging comprehensive cooperation (recent cooperation, legal framework or informal
process, benefit sharing intent, multiple issues); and continuing comprehensive coopera-
tion (cooperative arrangement, ongoing legal framework for share management, all
riparians involved, multiple issues, benefit sharing, aligns with customary international
law, existing for a decade).
The Strategic Foresight Group (2017), an active think tank in the field of water
diplomacy, has developed a Water Quotient to measure transboundary water coopera-
tion. The proposal uses three main levels of transboundary cooperation (active, basic, and
no cooperation), through an elaborate computation of 10 weighted parameters, ranging
from technical cooperation to political cooperation: agreement (1 point), communication
mechanism (1 point), technical projects (1 point), exchange of data (1 point), alternative
dispute resolution (3 points), floods, droughts and ecosystem protection (3 points), water
70 M. DE CHAISEMARTIN

infrastructure (5 points), inclusion (5 points), political commitment (5 points) and

institutional functioning (5 points).
The TFDD, developed by Oregon State University, offers particularly interesting
datasets and research projects, including an International Water Events Database,
described hereafter, and an International Freshwater Treaties Database, which includes
a typology of those instruments (TFDD, n.d.d). The TFDD’s Basin at Risk scale (BAR), or
Water Event Intensity Scale, (TFDD, n.d.c), classifies cooperative and conflictive events
as follows:

● –7: Formal declaration of war

● –6: Extensive war acts causing deaths, dislocation or high strategic cost
● –5: Small-scale military acts
● –4: Political-military hostile actions
● –3: Diplomatic-economic hostile actions
● –2: Strong verbal expressions displaying hostility in interaction
● –1: Mild verbal expressions displaying discord in interaction
● 0: Neutral or non-significant acts for the inter-nation situation
● 1: Minor official exchanges, talks or policy expressions – mild verbal support
● 2: Official verbal support of goals, values, or regime
● 3: Cultural or scientific agreement or support (non-strategic)
● 4: Non-military economic, technological or industrial agreement
● 5: Military economic or strategic support
● 6: International freshwater treaty, major strategic alliance (regional or international)
● 7: Voluntary unification into one nation.

As mentioned, this research has been instrumental in showing the reality of country
interactions in relation to transboundary waters. The International Water Events
Database documents more than 6400 international water relations between 1948 and
2008 (TFDD, n.d.c), showing that cooperation, more often than conflict, is the norm.
Looking more specifically at international freshwater treaties, the TFDD offers a database
of more than 600 treaties from 1820 to 2007. It classifies instruments by type and includes
information on e.g. their issue (e.g. water quality, water quantity, flood control, joint
management, navigation, technical cooperation), non-water linkages (e.g. to land or
energy) or scope (surface and/or groundwater) (TFDD, n.d.d).
Finally, a parallel can be drawn between the methodology developed for Indicator
6.5.1 (UNEP-DHI, n.d.) and the TWINS approach developed by Zeitoun and Mirumachi
(2008). This matrix offers a non-linear method of assessing transboundary water coop-
eration and conflict that can co-exist in a transboundary basin. The TWINS method
reflects the ‘dual nature of transboundary water interaction’, and cross-
analyzes levels of (a) cooperation intensity (1, confrontation of issue; 2, ad hoc; 3,
technical; 4, risk-averting; 5, risk-taking) and (b) conflict intensity (1, non-politicized;
2, politicized; 3, securitized/opportunitized; 4, violized) (p. 307).
All four of these water cooperation scales offer valuable, detailed and in-depth
perspectives on frameworks for transboundary water cooperation, and all four have
strong qualities to improve Indicator 6.5.2. But the one that may offer the best compro-
mise seems to be the TWINS nexus, mainly because of its scope, easy adaptation to
 WATER INTERNATIONAL 71

Indicator 6.5.2 and possible harmonization with Indicator 6.5.1, on IWRM. The five
cooperation types put forward by McCracken have the advantage of having been tested
on Indicator 6.5.2. But, as mentioned by McCracken (2017), they introduce a degree of
subjectivity and require a strong knowledge of cooperative scales. The qualitative aspects
of her types of cooperation may well be too substantive, therefore introducing criteria
that are not easily adaptable to Indicator 6.5.2. They are also suggested by McCracken as
an alternative, not an adjustment, to Indicator 6.5.2. While offering a very interesting and
deep evaluation of transboundary water cooperation levels, the structure and compo-
nents of the Strategic Foresight Group’s Water Quotient may be too elaborate and
therefore difficult to adapt to Indicator 6.5.2. The TFDD’s Basins at Risk scale reflects
interstate interactions and is much wider than a scale focused on cooperative frame-
works; only some of its elements could therefore be integrated into Indicator 6.5.2. But
TFDD’s typology of arrangements would be very well adapted to Indicator 6.5.2 and is
integrated in the proposal presented below.

Proposal for adjustment of the Indicator 6.5.2 methodology and data submission
form: an ‘operationality’ threshold and cooperation scale combination
SDG reporting is a complex and long-term process. It is therefore important and realistic
to address the shortcomings of this indicator and suggest improvements, while having
a minimal impact on its definition. Changes to its methodology and reporting template
should also be as small as possible. The proposal described below aims for a balance
between minimizing the changes to the indicator while allowing countries to report and
showcase a wider range of frameworks for transboundary cooperation. Envisaged as
a reporting scale that could be harmonized with the methodology of indicator 6.5.1, it
combines the ‘operationality’ threshold with a water cooperation measure that provides
a clearer typology of arrangements and other frameworks for transboundary water
management. This proposal also aims to integrate one of the water cooperation scales
presented above, combining

● the calculation of Indicator 6.5.2 as it stands with the four ‘operationality’ criteria,
together with
● a scale of ‘frameworks for cooperation on transboundary water management’ from 0
to 100.

This would require countries to (1) report on their ‘operational’ arrangements for water
cooperation using the existing four cumulative criteria threshold per Indicator 6.5.2; (2)
report on other ‘arrangements for water cooperation’ that comply with one, two or three
of the four ‘operationality’ criteria (McCracken, 2017; Sindico, 2016); and (3) report on
other existing ‘frameworks for cooperation on transboundary water management’ that
do not comply with the Indicator 6.5.2 criteria. Custodian agencies would then (4) collect
and classify the reported ‘frameworks for cooperation on transboundary water manage-
ment’, based on the TWINS water cooperation scale, adapted to include a typology of
arrangements as developed by the TFDD.
As seen in the previous section, the TWINS method offers a cross-analysis of coopera-
tion and conflict intensity. However, for Indicator 6.5.2, that is linear and focuses on
72 M. DE CHAISEMARTIN

water cooperation, only the TWINS ‘cooperation intensity’ scale would be considered:
(1) confrontation of issue; (2) ad hoc; (3) technical; (4) risk-averting; (5) risk-taking. The
TWINS scale includes an ‘ad-hoc agreement . . . on either side of a boundary-forming
river, without external government . . . interference’ and cooperation following mutual
agreements such as ‘risk-taking projects deriving from the EU Water Framework
Directive or global environmental compacts’ (Zeitoun & Mirumachi, 2008, p. 308). It
thus reflects some of the arrangements that would seem to be excluded from the
‘operationality’ criteria, such as the 1997 Watercourses Convention, the 2000 EU
Water Framework Directive, or an agreement between countries to cooperate despite
the arrangement not being in force yet (e.g. the 2010 Guarani Aquifer Agreement, or the
2014 Memorandum of Understanding for the Establishment of a Consultation
Mechanism for the ITAS). It would also include informal arrangements, such as the
1996 Memorandum of Agreement related to referral of water right applications between
the province of British Columbia (Canada) and the state of Washington (United States)
over the Abbotsford-Sumas aquifer and the 1999 Memorandum of Understanding
between the water utilities of Ciudad Juarez (Mexico) and El Paso (United States)
regarding the management of the Hueco-Bolson aquifer (Eckstein, 2017), that may not
qualify as ‘operational’ under Indicator 6.5.2. Finally, it would also allow reflecting other
‘frameworks for cooperation on transboundary water management’.
The TWINS approach also has a structure similar to Indicator 6.5.1 (UNEP-DHI, n.d.)
and could be arranged by degree:

● Absence of cooperation: very low (0)

● Confrontation of issue: low (20)
● Ad hoc: medium-low (40)
● Technical: medium-high (60)
● Risk-averting: high (80)
● Risk-taking: very high (100)

Only three adaptations would then remain to be made:

● Integrating a typology of arrangements based on the International Freshwater

Treaties Database (TFDD, n.d.d). Categories may be improved and added with
the reporting of countries on Indicator 6.5.2.
● Adapting the names of the TWINS categories to Indicator 6.5.2.
● This adaptation would be combined with the limitations identified by countries and
co-custodians during the first reporting phase and their suggestions for revising the
methodology and data submission form. Several other scientific and technical issues
are raised by this methodology and would need to be taken into account for
a comprehensive review of the indicator’s methodology.

On this occasion, some of the shortcomings of the report template could be addressed.
Indeed, definitions and examples should be provided (revised definition of ‘arrange-
ment’, definition of ‘joint body’, definition of ‘joint plan/objective’). The reporting
template could refer to the definition of ‘treaty’ in the 1969 Vienna Convention on the
Law of Treaties,11 supplemented by examples, along with examples of a wider range of
 WATER INTERNATIONAL 73

formal or informal water arrangements that could be aggregated to the overall results. It
should be explanatory and self-sufficient, to the extent possible, to limit inconsistency in
the reporting exercise.
Other revisions appear necessary in the methodology and data submission form, as seen
previously. Part I, being the main computation part of the reporting template for all countries,
should be developed to collect the necessary and essential data to calculate Indicator 6.5.2 and
integrate the adjustments proposed above. It would require very simple and reduced changes
to the data submission form, while allowing reporting in an efficient manner on each of the
four operationality criteria, considered both cumulatively and individually, and allowing
reporting on other ‘frameworks for cooperation on transboundary water management’.
This would also allow reporting on information that may not have been reported by countries
under Parts II to IV.
A revision of the reporting mechanism for the SDG indicators is foreseen to be
undertaken following this preliminary assessment and to be adopted in 2020 (IAEG-
SDGs, 2016). The revision suggested in this manuscript could fit within and be integrated
into the 2020 update. A preliminary assessment has been carried out by UNECE and
UNESCO (2018) and presented at the High-Level Political Forum, ‘Transformation
towards Sustainable and Resilient Societies’, held 9–18 July 2018 under the auspices of
the UN Economic and Social Council. On this occasion, several SDGs, including SDG 6
on water and sanitation, were reviewed (UN Sustainable Development Knowledge
Platform, n.d.). Such assessment and review by custodian agencies and countries is useful
to assess gaps in the methodology and questionnaire. In parallel, other initiatives such as
the Sustainable Development Goal Policy Support System (SDG-PSS), a monitoring
system for progress and action towards SDG 6 launched by the UN University
Institute for Water, Environment and Health (n.d.), will also be useful in addressing
gaps in the SDG indicators’ reporting mechanisms (Guppy, Mehta, & Qadir, 2019).

Conclusion
SDG Indicator 6.5.2 is an important and useful tool developed within the framework of
Agenda 2030 to report on the proportion of transboundary basin areas around the world
that are covered by operational arrangements for water cooperation. However, an
adjustment of its methodology would address some of its key shortcomings. In addition
to pointing to some of the major gaps of Indicator 6.5.2 and offering suggestions for
improvement, this article offers a concrete and detailed approach to a revision of the
indicator and its four ‘operationality’ criteria, focusing on legal aspects, which are
essential to its definition and methodology. This article analyzes certain legal points
raised in its methodology related to the four ‘operationality’ criteria of water cooperation
arrangements. A clearer definition of a ‘water cooperation arrangement’ and a wider
range of formal and informal transboundary water cooperation frameworks should be
considered. This article suggests a practical proposal for a revision of SDG Indicator
6.5.2. While trying to minimize changes to the existing methodology, it suggests combin-
ing the current ‘operationality’ threshold and calculation of Indicator 6.5.2 with a scale of
‘frameworks for cooperation on transboundary water management’ from 0 to 100,
making use of the existing TWINS and TFDD scales for transboundary water coopera-
tion. This adjustment to the methodology of Indicator 6.5.2 would improve this global
74 M. DE CHAISEMARTIN

reporting tool by making it more accurate and reflective of the reality on the ground and
better harmonized with Indicator 6.5.1, which it complements. It would also fit within the
upcoming indicator revision process. This adjustment would help reflect transboundary
water cooperation at large and remain consistent with the mainstream approach and
vision of the international community on the topic. Finally, adjusting the methodology of
Indicator 6.5.2 is important because this global SDG reporting exercise may well become
the future benchmark and reference point in global measurements of transboundary
water cooperation.

Notes
1. A target is ‘a quantified sub-component of a goal that will contribute in a major way to its
achievement. A target should be an outcome’ (UN Statistics Division, 2018).
2. An indicator is ‘a precise metric to assess if a target is being met. There may be more than
one indicator associated with a target’ (UN Statistics Division, 2018).
3. This manuscript is based on an earlier manuscript by the same author (de Chaisemartin,
2018).
4. Indicator 6.5.1 is defined as the ‘degree of integrated water resources management imple-
mentation (0–100),’ and Indicator 6.5.2 is defined as the ‘proportion of transboundary basin
area with an operational arrangement for water cooperation.’
5. UN-Water (https://www.unwater.org/) is the mechanism coordinating the efforts of UN
entities and international organizations on water and sanitation.
6. The SDG process and Indicator 6.5.2, among others, have attracted attention, and in
addition to McCracken’s (2017) initial comprehensive assessment, other authors have
pointed to several limitations of Indicator 6.5.2, while others offer suggestions for the
improvement of SDG 6 and/or Indicator 6.5.2. Among others, McCracken and Meyer
(2018) is a complement to McCracken’s initial assessment and provides more information
on the technical limitations of the indicator. Hussein, Menga, and Greco (2018) tackle its
gaps from a hydropolitical perspective, and suggest two detailed qualitative improvements:
‘(1) to make informal, formal, and technical talks count by adding a preoperational arrange-
ment phase; and (2) to introduce qualitative measurements to uncover whether cooperative
arrangements are producing positive or negative outcomes’. Onencan, Enserink, and Walle
(2019) offer a detailed review of the literature on the topic and include in their analysis the
earlier research by this author (de Chaisemartin, 2018). They also develop an interesting
‘mixed method approach’ to analyze quantitative as well as qualitative data to improve
Indicator 6.5.2. Other authors consider the indicator in their analysis when looking at
proposed ways to address gaps in the monitoring system at a larger scale, e.g. at the level
of the entire SDG 6. Guppy et al. (2019) identify two main potential gaps in that regard:
‘between the aspirations captured in SDG 6 targets and what will be measured by the
relevant indicators; and . . . between what is being measured in “means of implementation”
indicators and what the key means of implementation achievements of many countries are
expected to be under SDG 6’. Others have attempted to analyze SDG 6 and its implementa-
tion from an educational perspective, looking in particular at the role data acquisition,
capacity development and research may play in achieving this goal (Ortigara, Kay, &
Uhlenbrook, 2018).
7. For example, Articles 8, 9, 21, 24, 28 of the UN Watercourses Convention, and Articles 3, 6,
9, 13, 14, 15 of the UNECE Water Convention; see UNECE and UNESCO (2018, pp. 43–50).
8. Substantive law can be defined as ‘law that creates or defines rights, duties, obligations, and
causes of action that can be enforced by law’, as opposed to procedural law, which
‘prescribes the procedures and methods for enforcing rights and duties’ (https://www.
merriam-webster.com/legal/substantive%20law; https://www.merriam-webster.com/legal/
procedural%20law).
 WATER INTERNATIONAL 75

9. ‘The wars of the next century will be about water’ – Ismail Serageldin, former World Bank
vice president, quoted in Crosette (1995). ‘Fierce competition for fresh water may well
become a source of conflict and wars in the future’ – Kofi Annan, former UN secretary-
general (‘Mr Kofi Annan at the AAG’, 2001).
10. ‘The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development contains the blueprint of the common
vision of society towards which the world is trying to move. Inclusive and sustainable
development not only is an end in itself but also happens to be the best defence against the
risks of violent conflict. The 2030 Agenda also contains the promise to leave no one behind
in the quest to build such societies’ (Rep. of the Secretary General, 2018).
11. ‘For the purposes of the present Convention . . . “Treaty” means an international agree-
ment concluded between States in written form and governed by international law,
whether embodied in a single instrument or in two or more related instruments and
whatever its particular designation’ (Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1969,
article 2(1)(a)).

Acknowledgments
The author would like to express her gratitude to Professor Stephen C. McCaffrey for his guidance
and advice, and Riley T. Denoon for his help in proofreading the article.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

ORCID
Marguerite de Chaisemartin http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3807-5625

References
Boisson de Chazournes, L. (2013). Fresh water in international law. Oxford, UK: Oxford
University Press.
Coleman, P. (2018, March 19). Half the peace: The fear challenge and the case for promoting peace.
Global Observatory, International Peace Institute. Retrieved from https://theglobalobservatory.
org/2018/03/half-the-peace-fear-challenge-promoting-peace/
Coonrod, J. (2014, August 8). MDGs to SDGs: Top 10 differences. Hunger Project. Retrieved from
https://advocacy.thp.org/2014/08/08/mdgs-to-sdgs/
Crosette, B. (1995, August 10). Severe water crisis ahead for poorest nations in the next two
decades. New York Times.
de Chaisemartin, M. (2018). Measuring Transboundary Water Cooperation within the Framework
of Agenda 2030: A Proposal for a Revision of SDG Indicator 6.5.2. Retrieved from https://ssrn.
com/abstract=3184575
Deutsche Gesellschaft für internationale Zusammenarbeit. (2014). Financial sustainability of
international river basin organizations final report. Retrieved from https://www.giz.de/exper
tise/downloads/giz2014-en-financial-sustainability-river-basin-organizations.pdf
Dinar, S. (2009). International water treaties: Negotiation and cooperation along transboundary
rivers. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
Eckstein, G. (2017). The international law of transboundary groundwater resources. Abingdon, UK:
Routledge Earthscan.
EU Water Framework Directive. (2000). Directive 2000/60/EC, of the European Parliament and of
the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of
76 M. DE CHAISEMARTIN

water policy, 2000 O.J. (L 327). Retrieved from http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/

?uri=CELEX:32000L0060
Global Environment Facility. (n.d.a). Enabling implementation of the regional SAP for the rational
and equitable management of the Nubian Sandstone Aquifer System (NSAS). Retrieved from
https://www.thegef.org/project/enabling-implementation-regional-sap-rational-and-equitable-
management-nubian-sandstone
Global Environment Facility. (n.d.b). Formulation of an action programme for the integrated
management of the shared Nubian aquifer. Retrieved from https://www.thegef.org/project/
formulation-action-programme-integrated-management-shared-nubian-aquifer
Guppy, L., Mehta, P., & Qadir, M. (2019). Sustainable Development Goal 6: Two gaps in the race
for indicators. Sustainability Science, 14, 501–513.
Hussein, H., Menga, F., & Greco, F. (2018). Monitoring transboundary water cooperation in SDG
6.5.2: How a critical hydropolitics approach can spot inequitable outcomes. Sustainability, 10
(10), 3640. Retrieved from https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/10/3640
IGRAC & UNESCO-IHP. 2015. Transboundary aquifers of the world [map] edition 2015 scale 1:
50 000 000. Delft, Netherlands: International Groundwater Resources Assessment Centre,
2015. Retrieved from https://www.un-igrac.org/sites/default/files/resources/files/TBAmap_
2015.pdf
Indus Waters Treaty. (1960, September 19). 419 U.N.T.S. 125. Retrieved from https://treaties.un.
org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%20419/volume-419-I-6032-English.pdf
Inter-agency and Expert Group on Sustainable Development Goals Indicators. (2016, September
20). General principles for refining the indicator framework (Draft). Retrieved from https://
unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/meetings/iaeg-sdgs-meeting-04/General%20Principles%20for%
20Refining%20the%20Indicator%20Framework.pdf
Inter-agency and Expert Group on Sustainable Development Goals Indicators. (2017, December
15). Tier classification for global indicators. Retrieved from https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/Tier
%20Classification%20of%20SDG%20Indicators_15%20Dec%202017_web%20final.pdf
Inter-agency and Expert Group on Sustainable Development Goals Indicators. (n.d.). Retrieved
from https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/iaeg-sdgs/
International Commission for the Protection of the Danube River. (n.d.). Danube basin. Retrieved
from http://www.icpdr.org/main/danube-basin
International Waters Governance. (n.d.). Nubian sandstone aquifer system. Retrieved from http://
www.internationalwatersgovernance.com/nubian-sandstone-aquifer-system-nsas.html
Leb, C. (2013). Cooperation in the law of transboundary water resources. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
McCaffrey, S. C. (2003). The need for flexibility in freshwater treaty regimes. Natural Resources
Forum, 27, 156.
McCaffrey, S. C. (2019). The law of international watercourses (3rd ed.). Oxford, UK: Oxford
University Press.
McCracken, M. (2017). Measuring transboundary water cooperation: Options for sustainable
development goal target 6.5 (TEC Background Paper No. 23). Global Water Partnership
Technical Committee. Retrieved from https://www.gwp.org/globalassets/global/toolbox/pub
lications/background-papers/gwp-tec_23_measuring-transboundary-water-cooperation.pdf
McCracken, M., & Meyer, C. (2018). Monitoring of transboundary water cooperation: Review of
Sustainable Development Goal Indicator 6.5.2 methodology. Journal of Hydrology, 563, 1–12.
Retrieved from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022169418303366
Memorandum of Understanding for the Establishment of a Consultation Mechanism for the
Integrated Management of the Water Resources of the Iullemeden, Taoudeni/Tanezrouft
Aquifer System (ITAS). (2014, March 28). Retrieved from https://www.internationalwaterlaw.
org/documents/regionaldocs/Iullemeden_MOU-2014.pdf
‘Mr Kofi Annan at the AAG’ [Editorial]. (2001). New Zealand Geographer, 57(1). 4.
Onencan, A. M., Enserink, B., & Walle, B. V. D. (2019). Sustainability indicators: Monitoring
cross-county water cooperation in the Nzoia River basin, Kenya. Sustainability, 11(3), 560.
Retrieved from https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/3/560
 WATER INTERNATIONAL 77

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (n.d.). Water governance in OECD
countries: A multi-level approach – Highlights. Retrieved from https://www.oecd.org/govern
ance/regional-policy/48885867.pdf
Ortigara, A., Kay, M., & Uhlenbrook, S. (2018). A review of the SDG 6 synthesis report 2018 from
an education, training, and research perspective. Water, 10(10), 1353. Retrieved from https://
www.mdpi.com/2073-4441/10/10/1353
Rep. of the Secretary General, U.N. Doc. A/72/707-S/2018/43. (2018, January 18). Retrieved from
https://undocs.org/a/72/707
Sindico, F. (2016). Transboundary water cooperation and the Sustainable Development Goals.
UNESCO-IHP. Retrieved from http://www.unesco.org/new/fileadmin/MULTIMEDIA/HQ/
SC/pdf/Transboundary_Water_Cooperation_and_the_SDGs.pdf
Stephan, R. M. (2013, October 20). Adoption of regional strategic action plan on the Nubian
sandstone aquifer. International Water Law Project Blog. Retrieved from https://www.interna
tionalwaterlaw.org/blog/2013/10/20/adoption-of-regional-strategic-action-plan-on-the-nubian
-sandstone-aquifer/
Strategic Foresight Group. (2017). Water cooperation quotient 2017. Retrieved from http://strate
gicforesight.com/publication_pdf/Water%20Cooperation%20Quotient%202017.pdf
Tarlock, D. (2015). Promoting effective water management cooperation among riparian nations
(TEC Background Paper No. 21). Global Water Partnership Technical Committee. Retrieved
from https://www.gwp.org/globalassets/global/toolbox/publications/background-papers/gwp_
tec21_web.pdf
Transboundary Freshwater Dispute Database. (n.d.a). International River Basin Organization
(RBO) database. Oregon State University: Program in Water Conflict Management and
Transformation. Retrieved from http://transboundarywaters.science.oregonstate.edu/content/
international-river-basin-organization-rbo-database
Transboundary Freshwater Dispute Database. (n.d.b). Data and datasets. Oregon State University:
Program in Water Conflict Management and Transformation. Retrieved from http://transboun
darywaters.science.oregonstate.edu/content/data-and-datasets
Transboundary Freshwater Dispute Database. (n.d.c). International water event database. Oregon
State University: Program in Water Conflict Management and Transformation. Retrieved from
http://transboundarywaters.science.oregonstate.edu/content/international-water-event-
database
Transboundary Freshwater Dispute Database. (n.d.d). International freshwater treaties database.
Oregon State University: Program in Water Conflict Management and Transformation.
Retrieved from http://transboundarywaters.science.oregonstate.edu/content/international-
freshwater-treaties-database
Treaty between Canada and the United States of America relating to the Cooperative Development
of the Water Resources of the Columbia River Basin. (1961, January 17). 15 U.S.T. 1555, 542 U.
N . T . S . 2 4 4 . R e t r i e v e d f r o m h t t p : / / c r t l i b r a r y . c b t . o r g / a r c h i v e /fi l e s / 8 e a d 1 1 7 0
f227746e2531a241b4977495.pdf
UN. (1945, 26 June). Charter of the United Nations. 1976 U.N.Y.B. 1043. Retrieved from https://
treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/No%20Volume/Part/un_charter.pdf
UN General Assembly Resolution 70/1. (2015, September 25). Retrieved from http://www.un.org/en/
development/desa/population/migration/generalassembly/docs/globalcompact/A_RES_70_1_E.pdf
UN General Assembly Resolution 71/313. (2017, July 6). Retrieved from https://undocs.org/A/
RES/71/313
UN SCOR, 7818 mtg., U.N. Doc. S/PV.7818. (2016, November 22). Retrieved from http://www.un.
org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/PV.7818
UN Statistics Division. (2018, June 20). Global SDG indicators database: Frequently asked
questions. Retrieved from https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/indicators/en/
UN Sustainable Development Knowledge Platform. (n.d.). HLPF 2018: High-level political forum
on sustainable development, introduction. Retrieved from https://sustainabledevelopment.un.
org/hlpf/2018
78 M. DE CHAISEMARTIN

UN University Institute for Water, Environment and Health. (n.d.). SDG 6 Policy Support System
(SDG-PSS). Retrieved from https://sdgpss.net/en/
UNECE. (1992, March 17). Convention on the Protection and Use of Transboundary
Watercourses and International Lakes. 1936 U.N.T.S. 269. Retrieved from https://treaties.un.
org/doc/Treaties/1992/03/19920317%2005-46%20AM/Ch_XXVII_05p.pdf
UN. (1997, May 21). Convention on the Law of the Non-Navigational Uses of International
Watercourses. U.N. Doc. A/RES/51/299. Retrieved from https://treaties.un.org/doc/Treaties/
1998/09/19980925%2006-30%20PM/Ch_XXVII_12p.pdf
UNECE & UNESCO. (2017a, May 18). Indicator 6.5.2, calculation of the indicator step-by-step
[PowerPoint presentation. Technical webinar]. UN-Water. Retrieved from http://www.sdg6mo
nitoring.org/indicators/target-65/indicators652/
UNECE & UNESCO. (2017b). Integrated monitoring guide for SDG 6: Step-by-step monitoring
methodology for Indicator 6.5.2 (2017, January 11 version). UN Water. Retrieved from http://
www.unwater.org/publications/step-step-methodology-monitoring-transboundary-coopera
tion-6-5-2/
UNECE & UNESCO. (2018). Progress on transboundary water cooperation, global baseline for SDG
Indicator 6.5.2. UN-Water. Retrieved from http://www.unwater.org/publications/progress-on-
transboundary-water-cooperation-652/
UNECE & UNESCO. (n.d.). Reporting on the global SDG Indicator 6.5.2, Data submission
form, template.UN-Water. Retrieved from http://www.sdg6monitoring.org/indicators/target-
65/indicators652/
UNEP-DHI Centre on Water and Environment. (n.d.). SDG Indicator 6.5.1 survey questionnaire,
country questionnaire for Indicator 6.5.1: Degree of integrated water resources management
implementation (0–100). UNEP-DHI IWRM Data Portal. Retrieved from http://iwrmdatapor
tal.unepdhi.org/iwrmmonitoring.html#panel1
UN. (n.d.). The Global Goals for Sustainable Development: Questions & answers. Retrieved from
https://www.globalgoals.org/faq
UN-Water. (2017, July 12). Integrated monitoring guide for Sustainable Development Goal 6 on
water and sanitation good practices for country monitoring systems. Retrieved from http://
www.unwater.org/publications/good-practices-sdg-6-monitoring/
UN-Water. (n.d.a). Monitoring SDG6 on water and sanitation: GEMI. Retrieved from http://www.
sdg6monitoring.org/about/components/presenting-gemi/
UN-Water. (n.d.b). Monitoring SDG6 on water and sanitation, Indicator 6.5.2: Transboundary
cooperation. Retrieved from http://www.sdg6monitoring.org/indicators/target-65/
indicators652/
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. (1969 May, 23). 1155 U.N.T.S. 331. Retrieved from
https://treaties.un.org/doc/publication/unts/volume%201155/volume-1155-i-18232-english.pdf
Yoffe, S., Wolf, A. T., & Giordano, M. (2003). Conflict and cooperation over international fresh-
water resources: Indicators of basins at risk. Journal of the American Water Resources
Association, 39, 1109.
Zartman, I. W. (2008). Concept: Cooperation. PIN Points, 30, 5–7.
Zeitoun, M., & Mirumachi, M. (2008). Transboundary water interaction I: Reconsidering conflict
and cooperation. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 8(4),
297. Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.335.5938&rep=
rep1&type=pdf