By Haozhi Pan, Professor at the School of International and Public Affairs, Shanghai Jiao Tong University.

Taming an Ocean of Information

Imagine trying to solve a global puzzle where the pieces are scattered across decades, written in hundreds of languages, and buried in thousands of dusty archives, diplomatic cables, and satellite data. This was the monumental challenge facing scientists seeking to understand what makes water cooperation between nations succeed or fail. Now, our study tries to crack the code, not with more diplomats, but with Artificial Intelligence. By harnessing the power of Large Language Models (LLMs), over 70 years of “messy” historical text are transformed into a predictive roadmap for global peace.

The study draws on more than 2,000 documented cases of transboundary water conflict and cooperation worldwide between 1951 and 2019. These cases range from high-profile disputes, such as tensions over the Nile or Indus rivers, to quieter examples of long-term collaboration, like joint river basin organizations in Europe and West Africa. Traditionally, scholars have studied such cases through qualitative analysis or statistical summaries. What makes this study different is its forward-looking ambition. Instead of only explaining the past, it asks what kinds of cooperation are most likely to prevent future conflicts under climate change.

The team employed a technique called Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG). They essentially trained their LLM system on a vast library of interdisciplinary literature, from political science theories of cooperation to numerical models of hydrology and climate science. Then, it is unleashed on the messy historical texts. The AI could read a short, ambiguous description of a 1960s water meeting, understand its context through the lens of international relations theory, and codify it in a way that allowed for systematic comparison with satellite-derived water stress data from the same region and period. For the first time, the nuanced “story” of diplomacy could be quantitatively linked to environmental and socioeconomic drivers.

Six Patterns Forged from Data

From this large body of evidence, the study identifies six distinct modes of water-related cooperation that have repeatedly appeared in real-world practice.

Some are formal and legalistic, such as cross-border basin agreements, which establish treaties, rules, and dispute-resolution mechanisms for shared rivers or aquifers. Others are more flexible, such as collaborative planning and adaptation, where countries jointly plan for floods, droughts, and climate uncertainty. There are also more technical forms of cooperation, including joint water allocation models, shared data and monitoring systems, transboundary water quality standards, and coordinated hydropower operations.

Each of these modes reflects a different theory of how cooperation works. Treaties emphasize rules and stability; planning processes emphasize learning and participation; data-sharing emphasizes transparency and trust. Importantly, the study does not treat these as abstract categories. Each mode is grounded in concrete historical examples, from the Mekong River Commission’s data exchange to the Senegal River Basin Organization’s integrated management approach.

Why combinations matter more than single solutions

One of the study’s most important findings is that no single cooperation mode is a silver bullet. Instead, the strongest reductions in conflict risk occur when multiple modes are combined. In high-risk settings, combining cross-border basin agreements, collaborative planning, and joint water allocation is associated with roughly one fewer conflict over five years. This insight matters because many international efforts still focus on one-off solutions. signing a treaty, building a dam, or launching a data platform.

Looking ahead to a warmer, riskier world

The study goes beyond historical analysis by linking its findings to future climate scenarios, using the widely adopted Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSPs). Under high-emission, high-stress scenarios, water-related conflicts are projected to rise sharply in parts of South America, Africa, and Asia. Yet the study also shows that targeted cooperation could offset more than half of these projected conflicts in regions such as Europe, North America, and parts of East and Southeast Asia.

The picture is less optimistic for some low-income, highly water-stressed regions, where institutional capacity and diplomatic leverage are limited. In these contexts, even well-designed cooperation frameworks struggle to deliver the same benefits. This finding highlights a crucial equity issue: the places most vulnerable to climate-driven water stress are often the least equipped to implement effective cooperation on their own.

Haozhi Pan, Professor at the School of International and Public Affairs, Shanghai Jiao Tong University.

Att få varmt vatten direkt ur kranen är en självklarhet i svenska hem. Men denna bekvämlighet har ett högt pris: enorma mängder energi går förlorade i de system som ständigt håller vattnet varmt. Samtidigt måste temperaturen vara tillräckligt hög för att förhindra tillväxt av den skadliga legionellabakterien. Ny forskning från KTH och Chalmers visar nu hur vi kan lösa denna ekvation – genom att spara energi utan att kompromissa med säkerheten.

Varmvattnets dolda energitjuv

I ett genomsnittligt svenskt flerbostadshus står uppvärmning av tappvarmvatten för cirka 25–30 kWh per kvadratmeter och år. Ungefär en tredjedel av detta, eller 8–10 kWh per kvadratmeter, är rena förluster från den så kallade varmvattencirkulationen (VVC). VVC-systemet pumpar konstant runt hett vatten i fastigheten för att säkerställa kort väntetid vid kranen. Dessa förluster motsvarar mellan 2,5 och 4,3 TWh årligen i Sveriges flerbostadshus – lika mycket energi som fjärrvärmen till en medelstor svensk stad.

Dilemmat: Energi vs. Bakterier

För att undvika tillväxt av Legionella pneumophila, en bakterie som kan orsaka allvarlig lunginflammation, kräver svenska byggregler att temperaturen i VVC-systemet är minst 50 °C. Men en hög temperatur driver oundvikligen upp värmeförlusterna. För att hitta den optimala balansen byggde forskarna en fullskalig testanläggning på KTH som exakt simulerar systemet i ett flerbostadshus med 20 lägenheter.

Resultat: Pumpen är den verkliga boven

Forskarna testade två scenarier: ett med högt vattenflöde (0,5 m/s) och ett med lågt flöde (0,2 m/s). Den mest relevanta analysen gjordes när systemet, precis som i verkligheten, justerades för att uppfylla lagkravet om en returtemperatur på minst 50 °C.

Resultatet: den årliga värmeförlusten var i praktiken identisk oavsett flöde. Lågflödesdriften förlorade 4276 kWh per år, medan högflödesdriften förlorade 4253 kWh. Anledningen är att två effekter tar ut varandra: lågflödessystemet kräver en lite högre starttemperatur, men det långsammare flödet ökar samtidigt rörets inre värmemotstånd, vilket bromsar förlusterna.

Den verkliga skillnaden låg istället i energin som krävdes för att driva cirkulationspumpen. Högflödesdrift krävde en effekt på 108 W, vilket var 3,4 gånger mer än de 32 W som lågflödesdriften behövde. På ett år innebar detta en besparing på 666 kWh i ren elenergi. Detta ledde till en total energibesparing för hela systemet på cirka 12 %, där hela vinsten kom från den minskade elanvändningen för pumpen.

Effektiv legionellakontroll utan slöseri

Parallellt med energimätningarna undersöktes hur legionellabakterien beter sig i systemet. Forskarna fann att:

1. Legionella uppstår inte av sig själv. Trots ideala temperaturer (41–43 °C) kunde bakterien inte etablera sig i det rena kommunala dricksvattnet. Det krävdes en “smitta” utifrån för att en koloni skulle växa fram.
2. Periodiska värmechocker fungerar utmärkt. När bakterien väl var etablerad, visade sig kortvariga temperaturhöjningar till 60–65 °C vara effektiva för att slå ut den. Detta bevisar att man inte behöver hålla en konstant hög temperatur för att garantera säkerheten.
3. Legionella återkommer efter en tid utan värmechocker. Om legionella är etablerad i systemet och man värmechockar systemet försvinner eller begränsas förekomsten kraftigt. Effekten visade sig att tillfällig, efter en tid på 2 veckor noterades att Legionella bakterier hade börjat att växa till. Därmed är det viktigt att man har periodisk temperaturhöjning.

Verkligheten bekräftar: Problemen finns där man tror

För att se hur det ser ut i praktiken analyserades 56 vattenprover från system i flerbostadshus. Resultaten bekräftade bilden från labbet: legionellaproblemen är inte generella i ett system, utan starkt lokala. Medan 10% av alla stickprov innehöll spår av bakterien, fanns nästan alla höga och problematiska halter i byggnader med kända konstruktionsfel. Den vanligaste orsaken var handdukstorkar som kopplats direkt på VVC-systemet, vilket skapar zoner där vattnet blir stillastående och får en perfekt temperatur för bakterietillväxt.

Vägen framåt: Smart styrning och mindre klimatpåverkan

Forskningen visar att det kan finnas en smartare väg framåt som balanserar både energi och hälsa. Genom att kombinera en lågflödesdrift för att minimera pumpenergin med periodiska temperaturhöjningar för att hålla bakterierna i schack, kan fastighetsägare spara energi utan att tumma på säkerheten.

– Det handlar inte om att sänka säkerheten, utan om att styra klokare, säger Jesper Knutsson, en av forskarna bakom studien. Med rätt teknik och kunskap kan vi både skydda hälsan och nå våra nationella energimål.

Jesper Knutsson, Tekn.Dr. Chalmers Tekniska Högskola, Architecture and civil engineering

Jörgen Wallin. Docent, KTH, Energiteknik

Till Jörgen Wallins profil

Till Jesper Knutssons profil

Dr. Louis Delannoy is a Researcher for the Global Economic Dynamics and the Biosphere programme (GEDB) of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, and the Stockholm Resilience Centre. A transdisciplinary researcher, Louis combines various tools to understand how crises are transferred, absorbed and linked across space, time and sectors of society. He specifically focuses on the conceptualisation and formalisation of polycrisis, and the development of a long-term multi-scale database on historical shocks and crises.

“Polycrisis” has become a buzzword to describe today’s overlapping challenges – from COVID-19 and the war in Ukraine to climate extremes and social turmoil. The intuition is clear: crises no longer come one at a time, but interact and mostly amplify each other. Yet the term is often used without precision. What does polycrisis really mean, how can we study it, and what does it imply for governance? At the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences and the Stockholm Resilience Centre, our team is working to answer these questions. In my seminar, I present three strands of our research: (I) a conceptual framework for polycrisis, (II) a global database of crises across five decades, and (III) an analysis of how institutions perceive risks compared to how they actually unfold.

First, it is crucial to understand what we mean by “crisis”. According to our social-ecological systems approach, a crisis emerges from two interrelated processes: shocks (diseases outbreaks, terrorist attacks, droughts, etc.) and creeping changes (democratic backsliding, biodiversity loss, etc.). The latter are considered much slower than the former, yet they must be regarded as critical. For example, intergenerational inequalities (which, when measured in terms of exposure to extreme weather events, have been steadily increasing since 1980 and are expected to worsen over time) are considered one of the factors contributing to Trump’s return to power. A polycrisis emerges when several crises overlap and reinforce one another. For example, when a heatwave worsens food insecurity or when a pandemic exposes long-standing weaknesses in health systems and social inequities. However, and as we found out in our first study, several interpretations of polycrisis co-exist. Yet if they disagreed on causes, they agreed on two points: polycrisis spans multiple scales, and it is more than a buzzword.

To see how polycrisis unfolds in practice, we built a database of shocks in 175 countries between 1970 and 2019. It tracks six types of disruptions – climate, conflict, economic, ecological, geophysical, and technological – year by year. The results show that shocks became increasingly entangled until around 2000, with combinations like climate–conflict–technology especially frequent. After that, patterns diverged by region: Asia experienced rising co-occurrences, while other regions plateaued or declined.

Figure 1 – The share of shocks per category per year in each region. REF = the reforming economies of Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union, OECD = the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development 90 countries and the European Union member states and candidates, MAF = the Middle East and Africa, LAM = Latin America and the Caribbean, ASIA = Asian countries except the Middle East, Japan, and the former Soviet Union states. Source: Delannoy et al. (2025).

To complement this effort, we are conducting an expert elicitation process mapping creeping changes. The overarching goal consists in mapping where and when crises take place in the world, and what kind of interactions can we measure through empirical studies. A critical caveat is of course the inclusion in the process of several perspectives, especially from marginalized communities, often disproportionately affected by crises. Another caveat is the recognition of the risks of misinterpretation in how we conceptualize crises and communicate our findings, and our responsibility in this regard.

To bridge the gap with governance, we looked at how global institutions perceive risks, focusing on the World Economic Forum’s Global Risks Reports. These reports heavily emphasize economic risks, while downplaying ecological and long-term systemic ones. Additionally, they frame risks as complex, regulatory challenges rather than opportunities for systemic transformations. This creates a dangerous gap, where governance can end up preparing for the wrong risks while overlooking the creeping changes that quietly erode resilience.

Taken together, our work shows three things. First, polycrisis is best understood as the interplay of shocks and creeping changes. Second, history reveals recurring patterns of how crises cluster and diverge across regions. Third, governance often misjudges these dynamics, focusing on the visible while neglecting the systemic. Polycrisis is not just a buzzword. It is a call to rethink how we study, anticipate, and govern crises in the Anthropocene. By combining conceptual clarity, long-term data, and critical analysis of risk perceptions, we can begin to build the foundations for more resilient responses.

Authored by Professor Zaini Ujang, Hon. DSc, PhD, PE, CEng (UK), FCIWEM (UK), FIChemE (UK), FRSP (Lund), AMP (HBS).

At the age of 60^th recently, I have decided to start a new venture in life. In the past, with PhD in environmental engineering from University of Newcastle, England, and certified as a chartered engineer, I have successfully completed two phases of professional life: Phase 1 as a tenured academic for 25 years (1988-2013) at Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, and Phase 2 as Secretary General of six ministries in Malaysia (2013-2025).

Phase 1 was completed to satisfy my curiosity in the scientific principles on environmental science and engineering, mainly related to water ecosystem and sustainability. I had opportunities to work closely with leading figures, not only within Malaysia, but global outreach including Sweden and Denmark. In line with global academic norms, we had ventured into sustainability of water management and tried to provide range of innovative solutions for both developed and developing countries. My approach was to work with leading authorities on relevant issues to the needs of developing countries, and tropical climate in particular.

With Mogens Henze from Denmark Technical University, for example, we co-authored many research papers mostly related to the applications of activated sludge models in tropical conditions, and co-edited two books related to environmental biotechnology and wastewater management for developing countries. With Gustaf Olsson from Lund University, we co-supervised at least 10 doctoral students since 2005 on various topics related advanced bioprocess engineering for water and wastewater technologies. And many other research collaborations with leading figures such as Mark van Loosdrecht (Delft), Tom Curtis (Newcastle), Masa Goto (Japan) and Norio Sugiura (Japan).

The lessons learned: Collaborate on pressing scientific issues and working closely with leading academic figures to catch-up with latest scientific methods and its applications.

My full time career in academia officially ended upon the completion of my tenure as Vice-Chancellor (in other countries it is known as President or Rector) of Universiti Teknologi Malaysia in July 2013.

Phase 2 was more excitement and challenging as a Secretary-General of six ministries (in some countries, the title is Vice-Minister or Permanent Secretary). The roles of Secretary-General is to lead senior officials to translate ideas into policy, from policy into legal instruments, from legal instruments into practices. Indeed with dedication and strong managerial skills, it was a smooth sailing to lead senior officials in big organisations, such as ministries, provided the political climates are positive in encouraging new framework and promote innovation. But often, political systems have been customised to conventional framework and approach in order to minimise political risks. For example, the polluters pay principle is a good idea. However when environmental services such as water and energy pricing, and carbon tax to be introduced and sustainably enhanced using polluters pay principle, the systemic polluters used their political cards to object.

My observation has shown that mere scientific mastery and administrative authority might not be able to bring significant change or transformation in a society, particularly in developing world. Scientific community can provide evidences, promote appropriate solutions and outreach to policy makers. Often, policy makers themselves have other priorities in their political agenda, and placed environmental issues, such as water sustainability and climate change at the bottom of their to-do-list.

Therefore, we should learn from experiences in other regions where environment and climate have been considered among the top priorities in nation building and political agenda. Scandinavia and Japan could be good examples.

In 2018, I have written a book, entitled Eco-Shift: Holistic Transformation towards Environmental Sustainability. It was a reflection on bringing cultural transformation, instead of small changes in policy, practices and lifestyle towards green growth and climate action. Eco-Shift is defined as a transformative change, more than mere regulatory and organisational transformation, towards environmental sustainability. It covers personal domain, targeting behavioural and habitual changes. Organizational domain covers planning, strategy, execution and improvement, often limited to targeting “outputs” in the forms of key performance indicators, ratings, rankings, budgets, time-frame etc. For holistic transformation to occur, it requires significant changes in personal domain, targeting “outcomes” which involve values, attitudes, behaviours and habits. This lecture at KTH on 16 May 2025 was based on a sequel books by Zaini Ujang (2018, 2019 and 2020) to direct present discourse on ecology towards ecological philosophy, or ecosophy, on top of environmental policy. A special focus will be given by comparing ecosophy from a Scandinavian perspective, with respect to Asian perspectives, particularly Japanese.

Many countries within the Paris Agreement 2015 framework have agreed to adopt Net-Zero Emission (NZE) by 2050. However, climate action, as shown in series of annual COPs, has been excessively focus towards state-actors. Efforts to mitigate and adapt climate change by reducing greenhouse gas emissions and adapting to its current and future impacts should involve all sectors and actors. These actions are crucial in addressing global challenges in all sectors, including water and energy sectors. This lecture will explore the potential of non-state actors, mainly non-governmental international and national organisations, trade chambers, scholarly institutions, academies, conventional and new media, individuals and influencers.

Issues and outstanding challenges to improve the design and management of safe and reliable supply chains that are accessible and sustainable by creating predictive analytical tools and technologies, with examples on water-energy nexus. The framework of Eco-Shift will be highlighted through holistic transformation in thinking, public policy, cultural change and lifestyle in supply chain and market optimization, human health risks in the goods and services, and access to healthy ecosystem.

The speaker’s wide experience both in developing environmental and climate policy from national to international levels, and actively engaging various climate actors – particularly non-state actors – will open up wider opportunities, thus enhancing this discourse towards sustainable futures. In many ways, the roles of non-state actors could be more impactful and efficient, compared to politically-tied state-actors.

Bio

Zaini Ujang, 60, is a “professor-at-large” serving more than ten universities around the globe as a visiting professor.

He is also the non-executive Chairman, Malaysia Qualification Agency since March 2025. He was appointed as Secretary-General for six ministries in Federal Government of Malaysia within 12 years (2013-2025) on portfolios related to higher education, human resource, climate, energy, environment, water, energy and health. He was chairing many technical committees to formulate national policies, such as higher education blueprints (2015-2025 and 2035), green technology (2016-2025), green sukuk (2016), climate adaptation (2021-2030) etc.

He was a professor in environmental sustainability and President/Vice-Chancellor of Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (2008-2013), and assigned to head the Malaysian delegation and chief negotiator at COP26 (Glasgow) and COP27 (Sham El-Sheikh). 

Prior to his appointment in leadership roles at various institutions in Malaysia, since 2006, Zaini was Vice-President, International Water Association (based in London, 2004-2006) and had delivered more than 300 invited and keynote lectures including at MIT (June 2019), Imperial College London (almost annually since 2012), Lund (Sweden), Tokyo, Tsukuba and Kyoto universities. He has written more than 300 scientific papers and 52 books.

From April 16 to July 26, 2025, Zaini is undertaking a life challenge by traveling around the globe for 100 days, visiting and delivering lectures at 40 universities, including Imperial College London, MIT and Harvard. 

#100DayWorldLectureTour

Authored by Elisie Kåresdotter, Postdoc at KTH Royal Institute of Technology, based on her multi-year experience working with water conflict, cooperation, and climate adaptation in various contexts around the globe.

As climate change intensifies, so does the pressure on one of our most essential resources: water. Around the world, communities are grappling with increasing risks to water availability, threatening not only ecosystems and livelihoods but also peace. Yet within these challenges lie opportunities for cooperation, resilience, and innovative solutions. In fact, it has been more common to cooperate when faced with water-related challenges throughout history. Despite current events, such as in India and Pakistan, water wars have been rare throughout history and are unlikely. Most water conflicts are non-violent, such as protests or threats of withdrawing an agreement or building a dam that could negatively affect downstream water flows. However, low-intensity local conflicts are becoming more common, which could be linked to more and more people living with water challenges. It is estimated that around half of the world’s population currently suffers from high water stress at least one month per year, threatening secure delivery of water, food, health, jobs, and energy. As such, it becomes paramount to understand the complex relationship between water conflicts and cooperation, and how climate adaptation strategies can help shape more peaceful futures.

Water and Conflict: A Rising Tide

Data from recent decades shows a worrying trend: water-related conflicts are increasing, particularly within countries. Meanwhile, cooperation over water has declined. This trend is particularly pronounced in parts of Africa and Asia, where climate extremes and rapid socio-economic changes collide.

But these conflicts are rarely about water alone. They’re often entangled with other factors, such as governance, economic hardship, and population pressure. By looking at what is written about these conflicts in newspapers and scientific publications and comparing them to important factors, such as changes in rainfall, evaporation, population size and density, and the number and types of dams in rivers, we can start to understand why conflicts over water have grown in recent years and the regional differences.

In Africa, many recent conflicts have occurred alongside droughts and issues with water infrastructure. This region is unique globally because Sub-Saharan Africa is the only region where access to safe drinking water has decreased since 2000. The rise in conflicts can, at least partly, be attributed to climate change, since droughts are becoming more frequent and severe. This creates challenges for the people who rely on farming or herding livestock for their livelihoods. Inadequate water infrastructure and sustainable water management practices, especially in marginalized communities, together with cultural differences, land tenure security, and economic inequalities, worsen the issues and increase the risk of future conflicts unless addressed.

Figure 2. Locations of historic water conflicts (top) and cooperation (bottom) with internal (within countries) events shown in lighter colors and transboundary (between countries) events shown in darker colors.

Figure 3. Rates of when a cooperation event led to no future conflicts in the next five years. Light blue colors mean that cooperation has been successful in reducing all conflicts in the following years, while brown to orange colors mean that the country still had conflicts even after cooperation was established.

In Asia, tensions have intensified over irrigation and dam construction. Here, many rivers run across multiple countries, requiring nations to work together to limit tension and prevent conflict between upstream and downstream regions. Ironically, while dams are intended to improve water supply for drinking and agriculture and manage river flow, they can reduce water availability by increasing evaporation. Building new dams can threaten water security and spark disputes with downstream communities. Existing water agreements often lack flexibility, making it difficult to adapt to changes in water flow due to increased populations, industrial and energy demand, and climate change. This increases competition among nations and sectors, potentially worsening unfair water distribution and escalating tensions.

Researchers have focused mainly on water conflicts in Africa and parts of Asia. As lessons from one region might not apply to another, we know less about how conflicts evolve and can be reduced in other parts of the world. This becomes especially problematic for regions with emerging issues, highlighting a need for more research covering diverse topics to minimize future security risks.

Cooperation: More Than a Peace Treaty

Encouragingly, cooperation works. Our analysis shows that water-related cooperation can significantly reduce the risk of future conflict, especially when it’s more than symbolic and when combinations of different cooperation are used. For example, suppose several different cooperation strategies are used, such as combining water treaties or agreements with the sharing of technology (for example, joint modeling of water allocation) and joint planning of adaptation strategies. In that case, it can create stronger and more effective collaboration compared to when fewer cooperation strategies exist between two or more actors sharing water resources. Further, cooperation can provide positive benefits beyond regional stability and improved resilience, especially in less affluent countries, through slight increases in exports and GDP.

Yet not all cooperation is created equal. Cooperation has a greater potential to prevent conflict in areas with low water stress than high water stress, even if the effect is still strong for high water stress areas. Still, regional differences matter. What works in South America will likely not work in East Africa. This points to the need for locally tailored, multi-pronged strategies for managing water and building trust and resilience.

Nature-Based Solutions: A Potential Path Forward

One promising way to tackle issues like extreme climate events, water scarcity, and water quality problems is through nature-based solutions (NbS). These are strategies that work with natural systems, rather than trying to control them. By restoring natural feasures such as wetlands, ponds, and floodplains, we can reduce the risk of flooding, boost groundwater recharge, and retain water to help during drought. Additionally, these solutions can enhance biodiversity and provide social and recreational benefits, such as cooling urban areas and reducing pollution.

Traditional technical solutions, often called “gray solutions”, can be too expensive in low-income settings. In these settings, NbS provides a cost-effective alternative to adapt to climate extremes and address underlying causes of conflict, such as access, inequality, and environmental degradation. NbS can be small-scale projects that help improve water management and resilience, strengthen ecosystem health, and encourage community engagement and cooperation. By doing so, they help tackle environmental and societal factors contributing to conflicts.

Charting the Course for Future Water Resilience

Water challenges do not have to lead to conflicts. Choices in governments, investments, corporations, and among individuals shape them. As we confront these complex challenges, it’s clear that the path forward requires innovation, collaboration, and adaptability. By understanding the dynamics between water conflicts and cooperation, we can develop strategies that prevent disputes and foster peace. Nature-based solutions offer a compelling way to address water-related issues, harnessing the power of nature to increase resilience and security, particularly in the face of climate change.

However, realizing this vision and creating locally adapted solutions requires action and communication between all sectors. By sharing knowledge, we can start to transform challenges into opportunities, strengthen cooperation, and adopt innovative practices. Because in a rapidly changing climate, the question isn’t just how we manage water. It’s how we manage and communicate with each other.

Links and publications

Kåresdotter et al., (2025). Water conflicts under climate change: Research gaps and priorities

Kåresdotter et al., (2023). Water-related conflict and cooperation events worldwide: A new dataset on historical and change trends with potential drivers. Science of The Total Environment, 868, 161555. 

Download the global dataset on water conflict and cooperation: https://doi.org/10.5281/ZENODO.7465153

Read Dr. Kåresdotters’ PhD thesis: Water in a Changing World: Unraveling the Complexities of Conflict and Cooperation