UN Special rapporteur Pedro Arrojo Agudo, speaking at an event during Geneva Peace Week on 31 October 2023, said water should be used as a tool for peace not war. (Geneva Solutions/Michelle Langrand)
PEACE & HUMANITARIAN WATER INTERVIEW
Pedro Arrojo Agudo: water should be a blue flag for peace, not a weapon of war
The UN special rapporteur on the human right to water and sanitation says water should be turned into a catalyst for peace as the world teeters on the edge of global war.
From Syria to Ukraine and now Gaza, water has been long used to harm and even punish the civilian population, according to Pedro Arrojo Agudo, UN special rapporteur on the human right to water and sanitation. The Spanish economist and former politician argued in his most recent report presented before the UN General Assembly in New York that water should not be a weapon of war but rather “a catalyst for peace, cooperation and unity among peoples”.
“Water is the blue soul of existence and what enables the cohesion of societies and human life in dignity,” Arrojo Agudo told Geneva Solutions on the margins of Geneva Peace Week, an annual event which brings together peacebuilding activists, researchers and diplomats for a week of discussions.
But amid an unprecedented escalation of hostilities in the Middle East in the past month, with Israel heavily restricting water supply into Gaza following the attacks by Hamas on 7 October, the experts’ words are a far cry from the reality in areas where peace is needed the most.
Arrojo Agudo speaks of the role of the international community in preventing such practices and offers insights into how rivers, lakes and other shared waterways can be used to prevent conflicts.
Geneva Solutions: What is the link between water and peace?
Pedro Arrojo Agudo: As I explain in my report, it depends on how we interpret water. If seen purely as an economic resource, especially in transboundary water basins and aquifers, it leads to competition and confrontation for ownership or control of the resource. But transitioning towards an ecosystem-based approach encourages cooperation and shared responsibility to effectively manage ecosystems for the benefit of all parties.
This, coupled with states' obligation to uphold human rights, particularly the right to clean water and sanitation, is key. Yet, in the context of shared basins, a government’s responsibility is influenced by its neighbour’s water management. This underscores the need for cooperation and dialogue among neighbouring nations. And as we face climate change, we must bear in mind that just as storms and hurricanes, rivers and the risks of floods and other extreme events don’t respect borders. If we want to address or mitigate these risks, we need an ecosystem-based approach that leads to a more open and evolved interpretation of national sovereignty, in this case, over water.
But sovereignty and economic competition are at the basis of the current model for how we manage water resources. How can countries that use these as arguments to resist change be convinced?
Beyond rational arguments, it is crucial to provide practical references. The European Union is a reference for leadership in ecosystem approaches. Its Water Framework Directive mandates shared responsibility in managing transboundary ecosystems to ensure their sustainability and well-being. Whether Lisbon has adequate water supply in the Tagus River is not solely Portugal’s responsibility but also Spain’s. By doing this, has Germany lost sovereignty? Has the Netherlands, France or Spain lost sovereignty? No, they have not. They have a clever, modern, 21st-century vision of sovereignty in areas that are inevitably shared, and it works well. Not only are risks associated with climate change managed effectively, but it also opens the door to social, cultural, environmental and economic benefits, as well as one particularly invaluable benefit: peace.
More countries are joining the Water Convention and striking deals to manage their cross-border basins together. Are we truly seeing a shift in the way we treat water?
Yes, but with serious challenges. I say this frankly. When I studied the global situation on this matter, I appreciated the immense significance of the Water Convention, which, like many international agreements, still needs to refine key concepts, for example, what it means to do significant harm to another country. But above all, it should enforce mandatory compliance with basic rules of good neighbourliness, sustainability, etc.
What surprised me most is how, apart from the European Union, the African continent is also a global leader in this matter. With vast transboundary basins spanning several African countries, transboundary agreements have been signed for the Senegal River, the Niger River and the Lake Chad. And a central part of these agreements is the human right to clean water and sanitation, by prioritising the basic needs of populations regardless of their origin and by fostering cross-border community and social participation, which I haven't seen in Europe.
Read more: Cooperating over shared water in West Africa
What about when conflict escalates to such high extents as is the case with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?
Unfortunately, when we reach war contexts, under the pretext of water or any other reason, water is often used as a weapon of war to punish the civilian population. This is in blatant contradiction with international law, starting with the Rome Statute. This is happening in Ukraine; it has been happening for years in Syria on the border with Turkey, and now it is happening harrowingly and brutally in Gaza before the eyes of a hesitant international community, which, fortunately, is no longer silent and is asking: what is happening and what can we do to stop this illegal use of water as collective punishment against the civilian population?
And what can be done?
The law on this matter is clear. So, in these extreme situations that convulse public opinion worldwide and push us to the brink of potential global catastrophes and world wars, which could be the last ones we experience, we are forced to review the international order. The United Nations is more necessary than ever, but we must strengthen its intervention capacity to enforce the international laws it has agreed upon. We also have to further democratise the United Nations’ functioning.
Do you mean the Security Council?
Certainly, for example, Switzerland and now Slovenia, along with my support and that of other actors, are persistently advocating for water to be included in the Security Council’s agenda as a key topic for global security and peace in transboundary basins. For now, we haven't succeeded, but once we do, it won’t be acceptable for any country to wield their veto power in such situations when it comes to matters of international legality. We must also grant effective power to international judicial institutions to intervene. It is always a challenge whether a country has ratified an instrument or not. All of this needs to be reviewed because it is not possible that having agreed on such clear legal principles when they are not adhered to, we find ourselves incapable of stopping actions already bordering on and falling into the realm of genocide.
You have suggested that polluting water ecosystems should be considered a crime against humanity...
Yes, but when there is toxic, massive and systematic contamination. I observed this, for example, in Peru but it is not the only country with this issue by far. Its history of open-pit mining and mass oil spills has led the government to acknowledge that 30 per cent of the Peruvian population is being contaminated with heavy metals on a daily basis. Of those 11 million Peruvians, 84 per cent are children under 11 years old. This is toxic contamination that is irreversible, progressive and accumulative, and furthermore, it cannot be detected by taste or, for example, by a surge in cases of diarrhoea. So, we are jeopardising the future health of hundreds of millions of people from their youngest age. And even if there is no intention to kill through these economic activities, as would be required to qualify it as a crime against humanity, the impact on health is well-known, and therefore, it implies responsibility. I requested that in these severe cases, a study be conducted to kick start a debate to widen the cases recognised as crimes against humanity and unblock the discussion towards the recognition of the crime of ecocide in international law.
Top bodies like the Security Council and the International Criminal Court may be harder to reform, and whether due to resources or political reasons, they can only take up a limited number of cases. As states prepare to discuss a new peace agenda at a summit on the UN’s future next year, what other actions within the UN system do you think would allow progress on these issues?
Although it embarrasses me to say it, the first step would be to include water on the agenda of the Summit of the Future. In what has been published for the summit so far, water does not appear. I am working to bring together a coalition of member states under the slogan, “Without water, there is no future”. We must have a discussion on water. This is the first step to spark international consensus. Without pressure, including from social movements, it is very difficult to revise these major agreements. If you think about it, we achieved important agreements in international law after major traumas happened; for example, the world wars and the great public pressure that followed gave way to human rights agreements.
Now, we face the danger of a world war, perhaps the last one. If we are sufficiently aware of these fundamental historical elements, I believe that the Summit of the Future must include the issue of water and the risks it poses to world peace and embrace water as a blue flag for peace.
By Michelle Langrand
SOURCE: GENEVA SOLUTIONS