1. Conjunctive management of surface and groundwater in transboundary watercourses: a first assessment
J. Lautze (IWMI)
B. Holmatov (Twente)
D. Saruchera (IUCN)
K. Villholth (IWMI)

2. Introduction
Recognition of shared surface water bodies led to establishment of RBOs
Transboundary aquifers receiving growing recognition
However, institutional frameworks remain separate, despite the interlinkages
Institutions for conjunctive management have not received extensive focus

3. Objectives
To understand how transboundary institutions have addressed conjunctive management
To assess status and strength of conjunctive water management in transboundary water treaties
How to enhance conjunctive water management in transboundary treaties

4. Methodology
Reviewed transboundary treaties to understand their scope and content based on water sources – surface, ground and conjunctive
Used formally codified examples of water sharing, found in transboundary treaties
Database used: Giordano et al 2014, TFDD, FAOLEX, International Water Law Project, Online searches
266 treaties mined and analysed

5. Data Analyses 9 quantitative analyses assessing the variance in:
-focus of treaties (sw, gw, both)
- evolution of conjunctive management treaties (year of establishment)
- geographic scale of treaties
- treaty focus: water use or water institutions
- water allocation
- water quality
- frequency and nature of basin organizations
- Presence of data exchange clauses
- Presence of monitoring clauses
One qualitative analysis
-review of truly conjunctive treaties to understand what sets them apart

6. Results 80% (209) of treaties focus on surface water
2% (5) of treaties are groundwater oriented
19% (52) of treaties are conjunctive oriented
On conjunctive treaties:
39 Light groundwater–heavy surface water coverage
8 Heavy groundwater–heavy surface water coverage
3 Light groundwater–light surface water coverage
2 Heavy groundwater–light surface water coverage

7. Quantitative Results Water allocation Water quality Data exchange
Surface water treaties – 55%
Groundwater treaties – 80%
Conjunctive treaties – 73%
Water quality
Surface water treaties – 40%
Conjunctive treaties – 80%
Data exchange
Surface water treaties – 43%
Groundwater treaties – 100%
Conjunctive treaties – 92%

8. Qualitative Results From 8 truly conjunctive treaties
2 distinct characteristics of conjunctive treaties emerge:
1) grant similar legal protection to both surface and ground water
2) focus is on the problem-shed, not watershed

9. Summary
A discernible body of conjunctive treaties, more than in groundwater
Emphasis of conjunctive treaties is on:
data exchange
monitoring
organizational development
Limited focus on specific water uses except for the environment
Conjunctive treaties respond to issues (problem shed) rather than watersheds

10. Lessons for SADC
Scale of conjunctive water management treaties is not straightforward.
Limited growth of robust conjunctive treaties is likely due to knowledge gaps. Investment in filling this knowledge gap is urgent.
Those who genuinely want to implement conjunctive management lack guidance. An opportunity to inform more effective management exist. Simply incorporating groundwater into existing RBOs may not work.

11. Areas for Further Study
When is conjunctive water management necessary? What set of criteria can determine this?
Development of global legal guidance on transboundary conjunctive management

12. Thank You!!
Full Paper: Water Policy (2018) 20 (1): Mail: