Proceedings of a Workshop—in Brief

Learning Resilience: Lessons for Managing Global Transboundary Water Vulnerabilities

Proceedings of a Workshop—in Brief

Transboundary water cooperation and effective water governance are essential to ensuring global security, economic development, and environmental sustainability. The AccelNet PEER2PEER project,¹ sponsored by the National Science Foundation and led by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (the National Academies), brings together global networks focusing on issues related to furthering transboundary water management (see Figure 1). Through these networks, the AccelNet PEER2PEER project works to synergize research initiatives, share data and tools, and foster collaboration in transboundary water security scholarship and capacity building to address gaps in research and education. The project creates an ecosystem for trans-

__________________

lating engineering, physical science, and social science research into plans and policies for adoption by stakeholders and governments at local, state or regional, national, and international levels.

The AccelNet PEER2PEER project has supported several activities, including three workshops on transboundary water management in the project regions. The first workshop explored project objectives in Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan on September 3 and 4, 2022, in partnership with the American University of Central Asia.² Participants discussed ideas of commonality between the partnering regions and institutions to be explored throughout the PEER2PEER program. The second workshop was held on November 1–3, 2023, in Samarkand, Uzbekistan, in partnership with Samarkand State University³ and explored opportunities for building a comprehensive assessment framework for identifying, averting, and adapting to vulnerabilities in transboundary water systems—focusing specifically on challenges faced by nation-states in Central Asia.

The third AccelNet PEER2PEER workshop was convened on June 24–25, 2024, in Irvine, California, to address ways to transform the ideas generated at the Samarkand workshop into lessons that can be applied on the local through trans-national levels to achieve resilience in the face of climate change and other vulnerabilities. This Proceedings of a Workshop–in Brief provides a high-level summary of key discussions held during the June 2024 workshop.

Though it was touched upon during the workshop, the societal impacts and political dynamics that influence vulnerability warrant further discussion, as they are crucial to understanding the broader context. Additionally, the program may consider specific clauses in agreement documents that have resulted in challenges, as a closer study of these clauses, along with discussions on strategies to mitigate these issues, may produce more concrete, applied lessons learned and practical insights for future policy development. Case studies may be explored to better understand where agreements succeed and where they fail.

WELCOME AND INTRODUCTIONS

Amir AghaKouchak (University of California, Irvine, United States), and Dalal Najib (U.S. National Academies) introduced the PEER2PEER program and the goals of the workshop. Najib stated that the project is focused on exploring solutions to the critical challenges facing transboundary water management by leveraging and connecting existing National Academies networks, including the Partnership for Enhanced Engagement in Research (PEER) program⁴ and the Arab-American Frontiers of Science, Engineering and Medicine Program,⁵ with partnering international networks (e.g., International Water Management Institute).

AghaKouchak provided an overview of the individual PEER2PEER activities and the goals of the current workshop, including:

• Expanding on ideas generated in previous PEER2PEER meetings, focused on cooperation and partnership strategies with emphasis on evaluating the implementation paths for existing policies related to transboundary water resources. Discussions paid particular attention to whether there are clear paths forward regarding the implementation of ideas, and, if not, what more is needed.
• Identifying new research needs and opportunities, such as additional issues that require further examination and refinement, using as a point of departure the initial lessons generated in Samarkand.
• Exploring opportunities for short-term fellowship exchanges to support collaboration and address these emerging issues in different regions will be developed.
• Generating new educational and outreach strategies, particularly to ensure that these lessons are widely disseminated throughout Central Asia, North Africa, the Middle East, and elsewhere, and identify how to utilize the best available tools for this.

__________________

SUMMARY OF THE 2023 SAMARKAND WORKSHOP

As background for the current workshop, David Feldman (University of California, Irvine, United States) discussed key ideas identified during the 2023 Samarkand workshop discussions. These included:

• Integrated management. Management should include a focus on uniting hydrological, ecological, economic, and institutional vulnerabilities via inclusive participation, reliable data for water diplomacy, and incorporating social as well as physical/ecological factors.
• Regional and transboundary cooperation. Current transboundary water agreements are not often effective in protecting societal concerns or environmental needs. Overcoming mistrust around these agreements is vital as is ensuring that data is translatable to various audiences.
• Climate resilience and adaptation. Actions are needed to respond to weather extremes via proactive adaptation by sharing vulnerability data, adopting natural storage alternatives where viable, and embracing novel as well as traditional conservation approaches.
• Data enhancement and interdisciplinary collaboration. There is a need for granular, local data on vulnerability as well as to recognize that economic constraints affect data access and availability.
• Capacity building and innovation adoption. These are necessary to improve water supply, demand management, and to reduce overall vulnerability. Specifically, local-level decision-support tools, open sharing of regional data, and low-impact as well as traditional infrastructure are of importance.

MOVING TO SOLUTIONS: A KEYNOTE ADDRESS

Peter Gleick (Pacific Institute, United States) discussed the importance of focusing on solutions to the issues and challenges identified during the 2023 Samarkand workshop. There is growing awareness that strategies that meet basic human needs for water, improve water quality, expand water access, and include community control and greater participation all help reduce the risks of conflict over water.

The Pacific Institute maintains an open-source Water Conflict chronology database that captures information on violent conflicts over water going back 4,500 years. Trends in recent data indicate that there has been a substantial increase in conflicts over water between 2000 and 2023 (see Figure 2). More often, disputes are over access to water resources, water rights, control over water, and where ground- and surface-water basins cross political boundaries. Many of the conflicts recorded in the database are at the subnational level, for example, ethnic conflicts in North Africa arising between pastoralists, nomads, and farmers over water resources.

Existing transboundary agreements generally fail to integrate climate change, Gleick said; however, institutional reforms to address this and other water management problems are becoming adopted. For example, the Biden administration is addressing climate change impacts on water availability and use in the Colorado River basin—evidence that political will and leadership can alter patterns of “path dependency.”

Efforts to explore natural water storage alternatives, such as wetlands and groundwater replenishment, are important, said Gleick, citing California’s recent efforts at nature-based solutions for groundwater recharge. There is also a need to manage water demand by promoting water conservation practices and technologies through adopting both novel innovations and traditional water-saving methods.

Gleick also discussed data enhancement issues as part of transboundary water management. The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization’s Global Information System on Water and Agriculture⁶ is both a national and international level data collection effort, which is a positive step in this area; however, much of the needed data is modeled (rather than collected), missing, or self-reported. These limitations must be acknowledged.

STRATEGIES TO ENHANCE INTEGRATED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

How integrated water management can be achieved was the focus of the first panel discussion, moderated by Ali Mirchi (Oklahoma State University, United States). The panel identified structures needed for a comprehensive, integrated approach to water resources management that embraces hydrological, ecological, and institutional aspects.

Mohamed Juana (National Water Resources Management Agency, Sierra Leone) began by discussing the work of his organization, which manages water resources in Sierra Leone. He provided an example of water challenges surrounding the Mano, Moa, Great and Little Scarcies basins in West Africa, which is shared by four countries: Sierra Leone, Liberia, Guinea, and Côte d’Ivoire. His agency is involved in transboundary water resources management in the Mano basin, including efforts to develop bylaws and build an awareness raising campaign around climate change and other issues. Socially vulnerable groups are an important part of these efforts.

There are complex challenges facing the region, Juana said, such as conflicting laws, unregulated mining and logging activity, political instability, climate change, local conflicts, and limited financial and human institutional capacity—all affecting water resources management. Data sharing is also a key challenge. He noted the importance of public awareness and stakeholder engagement around water resources management.

Kristina Toderich (Mie University, Japan) discussed activities in the Aral Sea basin, where there is transboundary water sharing among five countries. The impact of human activities and natural disasters on water availability and quality in the region is significant and continues to affect the well-being of millions of people.

The economic losses in the Aral Sea basin and other regions facing similar challenges have been enormous, particularly related to agriculture, Toderich said. Thus, improving agricultural practices is a key area requiring additional focus for the region. For example, there is a need for science and innovation to increase agricultural productivity using saline water and restoring saline soils as well as undertaking more research related to nonconventional crops and plant resource use. A collaborative effort to develop alternative water sources and more work on adaptation, mitigation, and biodiversity production are essential. The solutions should be integrated, not only focusing on water, but also on agriculture, ecosystem protection, and the well-being of people living in these areas, Toderich added.

Bridget Scanlon (University of Texas at Austin, United States) focused her remarks on water conservation and improving irrigation efficiency. Floods and droughts are our biggest challenge today, she said. Data barriers and data sharing are key areas for directing future efforts, particularly as data are now available through ground-based monitoring and other mechanisms, said Scanlon. Water-related data can be integrated with data on social factors to better consider the needs of underrepresented groups. Cultural issues are also important in integrated water management, including incorporating indigenous knowledge into water related decision-making.

Several themes emerged from the discussions with panelists, including the importance of raising decision-maker awareness, incorporating vulnerable groups into data collection and decision-making, and acknowledging the magnitude of economic and environmental losses when integrated management is not undertaken or attempted.

STRATEGIES FOR FOSTERING COLLABORATION

Najib moderated a panel focused on how regional cooperation, interdisciplinary collaboration, and transboundary water sharing can be enhanced. Discussions focused on lessons from existing transboundary agreements. Sharon

__________________

Megdal (University of Arizona Water Resources Research Center, United States) discussed strategies for fostering collaboration based on lessons from the U.S.-Mexico Transboundary Aquifer Assessment Program.

She introduced the concept of “wicked problems,” or “big problems that do not have a simple pathway to resolving them.” Collaboration and interdisciplinary work are necessary for addressing these “wicked problems,” as are processes to identify pathways to solutions. The Colorado River imbalance of supply and demand provides an example of a wicked water problem.

A key challenge facing U.S.–Mexico transboundary water management, Megdal said, is different governance approaches among these countries; U.S. water governance is decentralized, while Mexico’s is more centralized. Other challenges include multi-level and asymmetric access to resources within governance systems exacerbated by different units of measurement, languages, and cultures. Despite this, the countries have a long history of working collaboratively through the International Boundary and Water Commission on surface water and wastewater issues.

Stephen Agong (East Central University, United States) added to the discussion of strategies to foster collaboration around water resource issues. He described the importance of having strategic direction on issues such as building capacity for high quality research and training in water sustainability; promoting sustainable use of available water resources; improving water and soil health; creating synergies in transformative knowledge, technologies, and innovation; building capacity for good governance; establishing shared goals; creating a supportive environment and inclusive culture; encouraging good communication; celebrating diversity; and understanding that every water use has an environmental impact—exemplified by the Lake Victoria experience.

The goals of collaboration should be to strengthen water and food security and create a sustainable source of livelihood, global peace, and a secure planet and natural environment, Agong said. Embracing the principles of integrated water resources management is critical to fostering collaboration, leveraging innovative solutions, and supporting inclusive decision-making processes. Integrated water resources management provides an opportunity to address water challenges and promote sustainable development, benefiting future generations.

Azeem Shah (International Water Management Institute, Pakistan) said that the failure to integrate data and knowledge, activity sectors, and countries in basin and aquifer management disrupts efforts to optimally use water for food security and energy and constrains effective decision-making. It also contributes to unsustainable and inequitable water use across countries. Conversely, basin-wide management in shared waters may be greater due to its more equitable regional benefit.

Shah added that the failure to integrate data and knowledge in affected countries impedes collaboration, while knowledge co-development through incorporating local information builds trust. Also, the mapping of convergent interests is essential for collaboration.

Participants and panelists discussed several common themes from the panel, including the importance of enhancing regional cooperation, need for interdisciplinary collaboration, and benefits of transboundary water sharing. Other issues included the importance of governance capacity and consideration of asymmetries of power and resources. Participants also discussed the wickedness of these problems—any tractable solution may engender new problems that are difficult to solve. However, if the hurdle of collaboration can be surmounted, the benefits can extend beyond water to other resources.

FOSTERING COLLABORATION AND ENHANCING INTEGRATED WATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT: SUMMARY OF BREAKOUT SESSIONS

Workshop attendees continued the discussions in four breakout groups, each following the same prompts on issues raised in the first two panels, namely:

1. What frameworks, models, and approaches best encompass water vulnerabilities resulting from natural, physical, economic, institutional, and political factors?
2. How do we incorporate under-represented groups in decision-making?
3. What additional decision-making efforts are needed to foster inclusiveness?

4. What additional research and educational/outreach strategies are needed?
5. What lessons can be learned from failed transboundary cases (e.g., the Aral Sea?)
6. What measures should be incorporated in agreements to ensure adverse environmental and social impacts are mitigated/averted?
7. Are calamities that have occurred in the past reversible?
8. What additional research and educational/outreach strategies are needed?
9. How should data needs be prioritized to meet societal needs?
10. What are effective ways to make data understandable and translatable to users?
11. How can we encourage interdisciplinary collaboration for improved modeling?
12. What additional research and educational/outreach strategies are needed?

Feldman summarized some of the key issues identified during breakout sessions and panel discussions, including the following:

• Need for bottom-up and informal approaches to collaboration. Informal means of fostering community, as well as structural and institutional reforms, are important for effective collaboration. Bottom-up research collaborations are also necessary and have been apparent in successful collaborations, leading to enhancement of resilience, including scientific collaborations.
• Dynamic nature of the problem. The vulnerabilities and their impacts constantly evolve, thus, there is a need for management solutions that acknowledge this dynamism and are prepared to monitor and re-evaluate solutions and their progress over time.
• Need to meet stakeholders and potential collaborators on their terms and respect their cultural distinctiveness and perspectives. Collaboration is a two-way process; thus, it is important to acknowledge the linguistic, cultural, and other factors distinguishing those with whom one needs to work. Diverse perspectives and experiences, as well as a diversity of demographic characteristics, can facilitate collaborative efforts aimed at achieving resilience.
• Lack of foresight and imagination. A lack of foresight is evidenced in many of the water management problems throughout history. It is crucial to acknowledge this lack as a barrier to addressing these challenges.

VULNERABILITY FRAMEWORK

Amir AghaKouchak and Debora Oliveira (University of California, Irvine, United States) provided an overview of the water resources vulnerability and coping capacity assessment framework being developed by their research team (see Figure 3). To develop the framework, the team reviewed previous models that compare country-level water resources and governance, along with various vulnerability factors. The framework seeks to incorporate social resilience and coping capacity, government effectiveness and human development factors, water availability and demand, and frequency of climate related disasters. Combining these various indicators can help determine country-level vulnerability and its variation over time. The framework also assesses the level of exposure based on population and agricultural production. Future enhancements to the framework will include incorporating data on conflicts, environmental exposure, finer spatial resolution enhancements, and water stress versus water quality.

During discussions about the framework, participants highlighted the importance of recognizing the diversity of conditions in individual countries in the analysis, as well as the complicated political and social dynamics that come into play and must be acknowledged. Participants noted that some factors will prove to be more crucial than others in influencing the framework’s findings and conclusions. Also, demand forecasts are often inaccurate because they fail to encompass on-the ground realities such as variable water use.

Defining what populations are vulnerable is also an important consideration; individuals themselves vary in their degree of resilience. The framework should note

the variability of data, such as surface and groundwater levels, which can diverge significantly over time. Participants noted the need for case studies as well as blanket frameworks to understand vulnerability.

BUILDING RESILIENCE IN TRANSBOUNDARY WATER SYSTEMS A KEYNOTE ADDRESS

Scanlon discussed building resilience in transboundary water systems, noting that resilience requires resolving spatial and temporal disconnects between supply and demand. To resolve these disconnects, she discussed the importance of four points, including:

1. Increasing supplies, through desalination and wastewater reuse;
2. Reducing demand, through efforts related to conservation and efficiency;
3. Storing water in surface reservoirs or through managed aquifer recharge; and
4. More efficient transporting of available water through aqueducts.

Scanlon also discussed the Aral Sea crisis where the Uzbekistan government pledged implementation of advanced irrigation (drip, laser leveling) in all irrigated farming areas. The government subsidized one-third of the cost, which was still expensive for small fields (1 – 2 ha). This subsidy may result in a rebound effect, leading to a cropping intensification or expansion of irrigation and its environmental impacts, including more water used. A basin level analysis would be very important.

Scanlon noted the importance of understanding linkages between climate, water, food, and ecosystems to develop resilient solutions to vulnerability. It is also necessary to manage groundwater and surface water conjunctively to optimize water resources.

STRATEGIES FOR ACHIEVING RESILIENCE AND ADAPTATION

Feldman moderated a panel on the challenges posed by aridity and climate change and strategies for achieving resilience and adaptation.

Andrew Gronewold, University of Michigan, provided an overview of a new Global Center for Understanding Climate Change Impacts on Transboundary Waters. A major focus of the center is recognizing that transboundary basins incorporate multiple sovereign nations. The center was designed to incorporate the voices of indigenous partners, both in data development, and in governance structure and policy. It is conducting projects in several regions, including Owens Valley, California, by assessing water level thresholds required for environmental sustainability.

In the Great Lakes region, Gronewold discussed the efforts of the Coordinating Committee for the Great Lakes, an ad hoc group of about 60 federal agency representatives from the U.S. and Canada that have been

working together since 1953. The Committee meets regularly to coordinate data and align priorities. However, the data that is collected is not widely disseminated and has not served as a basis for research.

He also discussed the Center’s research related to the water use around the Rio Grande. Studies have indicated that there are important perceptual differences between those on the U.S. versus Mexican sides about the integrity and degree of justice in a treaty, which may impact perceptions of its success and affect who gets to be at the table when treaties are renegotiated. All of this can raise questions about equitability in any efforts to revisit the conditions of the U.S.–Mexico 1944 Treaty. Gronewold also noted the Center’s work on problems in transboundary regions with both relative water abundance (and flooding) and water scarcity. This range of challenges is represented collectively by the Great Lakes and the Rio Grande.

Sagynbek Orunbaev (American University of Central Asia, Kyrgyzstan) discussed weather extremes in Central Asia that have resulted in aridity and flooding that are of particular concern in the region. He noted that robust, shareable baseline data can inform decision-making around water resources in this region. Objectives should include understanding water availability, usage, and hazard trends. Developing and maintaining a comprehensive database that includes hydrological, metrological, and ecological data in Central Asia is necessary.

These database efforts should support and facilitate open-source data sharing among local, regional, and international stakeholders to ensure a unified understanding of water resource dynamics in the region, Orunbaev said. They should also incorporate a real time data monitoring system to track, modify and provide timely information for decision making.

Claudia Sadoff (Consortium of International Agricultural Research Centers, United States) provided a global perspective on building resilience and resilient adaptation systems within the context of transboundary water resources. She noted that resilience should be considered at multiple scales. While we may share goals in common in pursuing resilience, how we pursue them is also influenced by politics and a quest to maximize benefit. There is a need to be honest about our divergent goals and aspirations.

Sadoff noted key elements of a resilience and adaptation strategy in a transboundary context: information, investment, infrastructure, and institutions. More advanced and climate-informed databases and information systems can help contribute to such a strategy; however, a comprehensive database does not currently exist.

Sadoff added that there is a need for better water accounting, water balance usage, and identification of loss patterns for municipal and water supply and sanitation officials. Economic data are also necessary in the same regions in a transboundary basin in order to assess the potential for regional food shortages or, conversely, oversupply and unintended competition.

Investments and infrastructure are also essential as are improved conservation strategies and water laws pertaining to the assignment of water rights. Water management must be placed at the center of climate solutions, said Sadoff.

Feldman offered common themes from the panel discussion, noting that information is needed on several physical and societal factors, as well as more interdisciplinary research. Perceptual differences across political spaces should also be acknowledged as these differences filter how we use information and what we choose to believe. How this information is utilized and applied is also shaped by politics, he added. While there may be similar goals around water management among countries, there are also divergent interests which inhibit common strategies for achieving resilience goals. As such, resilience strategies must acknowledge links between water, food, energy, and the environment.

STRATEGIES FOR CAPACITY BUILDING AND INNOVATION

Abubakarr Mansaray (Oklahoma State University, United States) moderated a panel focused on strategies for capacity building and innovation around transboundary water management.

Newsha Ajami (Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, United States) began by noting that we continue to rely on a water infrastructure that was built in the last century, along with antiquated laws and regulations. We

often are locked into path dependent approaches—doing what we have always done because it’s what we know how to do. To face today’s challenges, we must consider an alternative path forward, including how to enable or expedite the uptake of innovative and forward-looking solutions. While technology is one kind of innovation, policy and governance reforms are also important.

Natural and political boundaries often do not align, yet decisions are frequently made within the confines of political borders and priorities, Ajami said. Therefore, if we want to impact water politics and policy, we should adapt scientific processes to timelines and priorities. Co-production of knowledge, engaging with the political process, and understanding policy priorities across political borders, especially in transboundary water management, are important.

Different countries have their own land and water use priorities, and coordination among those priorities is essential. Developing interdisciplinary and system thinkers can help with this coordination, said Ajami.

John Entsminger (Southern Nevada Water Authority, United States) discussed his organization’s work in supporting water management issues in Southern Nevada. He noted that Las Vegas has one of the most efficient water management systems in the U.S., resulting from careful resource planning, investment in modern infrastructure, and the formation of an infrastructure cooperative.

In fact, recent actions have helped to reduce water use in Southern Nevada despite population growth, said Entsminger. Since 2002, Southern Nevada has been able to reduce water use while its population grew by 52 percent. Its per capita water use is down 58 percent and water consumption is also down 42 percent.

Unfortunately, due to climate change and resulting warmer local temperatures, per capita water usage is projected to increase by 9 gallons per person per day by 2035. Innovation to address these challenges is possible but will require more money and political will, said Entsminger.

He further discussed water challenges in the Colorado River basin, which provides drinking water to 40 million people. The basin has many transboundary issues, both between the U.S. and Mexico and domestically among seven states. Entsminger discussed Minute 319, a landmark agreement between the U.S. and Mexico around water use in the basin, in which Mexico can use U.S. infrastructure to bank its unused water and Mexico agreed to take predetermined shortages when users in the U.S. took similar shortages. It allowed for the investment of U.S. funding for water efficiency projects in Mexico and established a pulse flow that reestablished hydrologic communication between the river and the Pacific Ocean for the first time in decades. It has served as a model in Central Asia and elsewhere for how to work cooperatively on transboundary issues among those nations.

Samer Talozi (Jordan University of Science and Technology [JUST], Jordan) discussed a collaborative USAID–PEER project between JUST and Stanford University focusing on issues of water education in Jordan and developing the Jordan Water Model (JWM). The model assessed groundwater, surface water, and the water supply network in Jordan (see Figure 4), and incorporated data on the behavior of three major institutions in water resource management in Jordan: the Jordan Valley Authority, responsible for irrigation water supply in the Jordan Valley; the Water Authority of Jordan, which manages groundwater well extractions and water conveyance between governorates; and the urban piped water utilities which are collectively responsible for distributing water within governorates. The model examines physical elements of water consumption through surface, groundwater, biophysical, and human modules.

Talozi noted that in considering how water is allocated in Jordan, understanding context is essential for considering innovation. Additionally, stakeholder incorporation is important, particularly with regards to ensuring that stakeholders are brought into decision-making at the appropriate time and that their input is welcomed.

Mansaray summarized themes from the panel discussion, including the role of crisis or necessity as driver of change. Unless we become aware that path dependent approaches will not work to address a pressing, urgent,

and irrevocable challenge, we will continue to do what we are currently doing, he said.

STRATEGIES FOR CAPACITY BUILDING, INNOVATION, AND ACHIEVING RESILIENCE AND ADAPTATION: SUMMARY OF BREAKOUT SESSIONS

Workshop attendees continued the discussions in four breakout groups, each following the same prompts on issues raised in the previous two panels, including:

1. What would a robust, shareable baseline data system for water availability, quality, availability, and usage look like?
2. Assuming natural storage alternatives and conservation are effective tools for adaptation, what improvements are needed?
3. What additional alternatives should be included? (e.g., reuse, brackish water desalination, groundwater replenishment).
4. What additional research and educational/outreach strategies are needed?
5. How can decision-support tools and technologies like AI enhance water resource management at various regional scales?
6. How can we promote sharing of regional data and knowledge for effective water diplomacy and cooperation?
7. Who should make investments in capacity-building? (governments, international NGOs, NGOs?)
8. What additional research and educational/outreach strategies are needed?

CONCLUDING THOUGHTS

Feldman provided a summary of workshop discussions, stating that there is a need to embrace five issues, namely:

1. Integrated management. Integrated management is more than drawing together different data sets covering hydrological and social factors in water but instead understanding that water, as an exploitable resource, is nested in other resource issues (e.g., food security, ecological health, human health, and energy). Thus, better understanding and communicating what is known about interconnections between water data and data in these domains are critical. Incorporating underserved populations and their needs in developing integrated

frameworks may help to reduce vulnerabilities.

2. Transboundary cooperation. While cooperation is taking place on numerous fronts and has been successful in identifying critical issues and agreeing on paths of reform, impediments and obstacles remain. Among the most important of these are divergent economic and political interests that are exacerbated by institutionalized practices which hinder cooperation, such as water rights systems that embrace overuse of water. It will be important to determine how these systems can be reformed and updated.
3. Resilience and adaptation. According to the workshop participants, resilience includes fortifying communities as well as entire societies against vulnerabilities. There is a need for clarity about what is meant by vulnerability. While societies may be considered vulnerable to climate change and its impacts on water, it is ultimately individuals who are vulnerable. Their vulnerabilities are determined in part by exogenous factors (i.e., water availability, drought, and flood) and endogenous factors (income, education, gender rights, and ethnicity), but also endogenous ones that are sharply uneven—income, education, gender rights, ethnicity. A challenge moving forward is determining how to encompass these environmental justice issues in resilience frameworks at the local context.
4. Data enhancement. While data sets that consider hydrological and social factors in water are important, water data nested in intersecting issues (e.g., food, energy, environmental quality, and human health) is also critically important. Additionally, open source and non-open-source data sets can be difficult to access and use. Data enhancement will require investment in user education and measures to assure more equitable data access, including data literacy.
5. Capacity building and innovation. Necessity can be the parent of innovation. A water crisis can spark the search for different innovative approaches. However, tradeoffs among options and their impacts on energy, environment, and public acceptability need to be acknowledged and understood. Better outreach and public education are necessary to encompass public concerns about the costs and perceived burdens and risks imposed by certain innovations.

Feldman noted that there is a need to continue to find ways to translate the best science into policies and other actions that can be adopted by decision-makers and contribute to innovation. Next steps include incorporating decision-makers and educators in these discussions.

Finally, Feldman discussed how organizational and political barriers should be considered when translating science into action, posing the question, how can we be effective advocates for social and political change while remaining credible scientists?

DISCLAIMER This Proceedings of a Workshop—in Brief was prepared by Daniel Placht, and Jennifer Saunders as a factual summary of what occurred at the meeting. The committee’s role was limited to planning the event. The statements made are those of the individual workshop participants and do not necessarily represent the views of all participants, the project sponsors, the planning committee, Policy and Global Affairs, or the National Academies.

PLANNING COMMITTEE Amir AghaKouchak (Co-Chair), University of California, Irvine; David Feldman (Co-Chair), University of California, Irvine; Charlotte Love, University of California, Irvine; Abubakarr Mansaray, Oklahoma State University; Ali Mirchi, Oklahoma State University; Daniel Placht, Program Officer, Science and Engineering Capacity Development, Policy and Global Affairs; and Rose Parker, Senior Program Assistant, Science and Engineering Capacity Development.

REVIEWERS To ensure that it meets institutional standards for quality and objectivity, this Proceedings of a Workshop—in Brief was reviewed by Esra Aleisa, Kuwait University, Andrew Gronewold, University of Michigan, and Bunyod Holmatov, International Water Management Institute. Marilyn Baker, National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, served as the review coordinator.

SPONSORS This workshop was supported by the National Science Foundation through Award #2114701.

SUGGESTED CITATION National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2024. Learning Resilience: Lessons for Managing Global Transboundary Water Vulnerabilities: Proceedings of a Workshop—in Brief. Washington, DC. National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/28769.

Policy and Global Affairs Copyright 2024 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.