Northumbria

A notable milestone in transboundary water cooperation has been the incorporation of reporting both under the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) framework and the Convention on the Protection and Use of Transboundary Watercourses and International Lakes. Much can be gained from reviewing the initial reporting exercise, which took place in 2017 and 2018. The first reporting exercise has demonstrated that, while progress has been made in the last decades, the need to strengthen cooperation over transboundary rivers, lakes and aquifers is clearly evident. Additionally, the experience of the first reporting exercise suggests that, although some adjust-ments might be made, reporting can play a valuable role in advancing transboundary water cooperation in the years to come.


RIEU-CLARKE
to, 'implement integrated water resources management at all levels, including through transboundary cooperation as appropriate '. 6 While the aforementioned milestones are significant in themselves, an additional and more 'technical' development is that both the SDGs and the Water Convention have introduced reporting mechanisms. These reporting mechanisms have the simple, but potentially highly effective purpose of systematically reviewing progress both in the adoption and implementation of cooperative arrangements for transboundary waters. With more than 150 countries sharing over 260 transboundary river and lake basins, and over This raises the question whether the adoption of such a mechanism under the SDGs and Water Convention will indeed have that desired effect, and advance transboundary water cooperation globally? In seeking to respond to that question, the aim of this article is to consider the development of the reporting mechanism under the SDGs and Water Convention, both in terms of their design and initial implementation.
The article first examines the rationale for reporting mechanisms. This is followed by an analysis of the origins of both reporting under the Water Convention and SDG indicator 6.5.2. In light of the first reporting exercise, which took place in 2017-2018, the article then identifies lessons learned from that exercise. Prior to the conclusion, the article examines how the outcomes of the reporting process can support transboundary water cooperation, both in terms of the results of the first reporting exercise and in the longer term. Ultimately, the article concludes by finding that both mechanisms offer great potential to support countries, international organizations and others in advancing transboundary water cooperation in a focused, systematic, collaborative, transparent and effective manner.

| WHY REP ORT ?
The managerial approach to compliance with international regulatory agreements, as advanced by Chayes and Chayes, maintains that traditional rules of State responsibility are not well suited to environmental problems. 8 The rationale behind this argument is that wrong-fulness in relation to environmental problems is not easy to detect because responsibility arises after a breach, whereas prevention is the best remedy. Additionally, the norms concerning environmental protection, such as due diligence or equity, are not easy to discern, making it difficult to assess any breach. 9 Scholars have therefore maintained that compliance with international regulatory agreements is best secured not through traditional enforcement mechanisms, but rather through methods such as reporting, which has the potential to enhance the legitimacy of international regulatory regimes. 10 Brown Weiss and Jacobson, for example, promote 'sunshine methods' as critical to fostering compliance. 11 These methods, according to the authors, are intended to bring the behaviour of parties and targeted actors into the open for appropriate scrutiny. 12 Transparency -namely, 'the generation and dissemination of information about the requirements of the regime and the Parties' performance under it' -is therefore seen as an important means by which to foster compliance with international treaty commitments. 13 Coupled with the recognition of the importance of transparency is the central role of persuasion in international law, which as Koskenniemi maintains is, 'instead of enforcement … the appropriate cure to the malady of non-compliance'. 14 Reporting is at the heart of any bid to promote transparency in relation to treaty compliance. Brunnée observes that reporting not only enhances transparency but also, 'trust as to Parties' performance, an effect that is reinforced by the publication of reports among Parties or their release to the general public'. 15 Other benefits of reporting include strengthening the understanding of treaty commitments and allowing for the exchange of information, good practices and experiences. 16 The value of reporting, and self-reporting by States in particular, has meant that it has become 'the method of choice in most regimes', 17 with 'most environmental conventions providing for contracting Parties to transmit regularly to the Secretariat information | 3

RIEU-CLARKE
on the measures adopted by them in the implementation of the convention to which they are Parties'. 18

| Water Convention
Reporting under the Water Convention was introduced by a decision taken at the seventh session of the Meeting of the Parties in Budapest in 2015. 19 At the time it was decided to run a pilot reporting exercise in 2016-2017 to test the template or questionnaire used for reporting. 20 The deadline for parties to submit their national reports was set for 30 June 2017, which would allow sufficient time to analyse the reports prior to the eighth session of the Meeting of the Parties in October 2018. 21 The structure of the template for reporting adopted by the parties in 2015 closely mirrored the commitments contained within the Water Convention. The first section asked three questions related to the national laws, policies, plans and strategies in place at the national level that support transboundary water management, including the existence of national licensing and permitting systems, as well as other procedures for monitoring and controlling pollution; procedures for transboundary environmental impact assessment (EIA); and the transboundary agreements or arrangements that the country has entered into at the bilateral, multilateral and basin level. 22 This section aligned closely to the Water Convention, which calls upon parties to, 'take all appropriate measures to prevent, control and reduce any transboundary impact'. 23 These questions also align to some of the provisions of the Watercourses Convention, such as the requirements to 'individually and, where appropriate jointly, prevent, reduce and control the pollution of an international watercourse'. 24 The second section of the template requires parties to report on the transboundary rivers, lakes and aquifers that they share and any agreements or arrangements that relate to them. 25 Parties are also required to report on the joint bodies that are in place to support the implementation of these agreements or arrangements. 26 In addition, parties are required to report on the content of any agreement or arrangement, the tasks and activities of any joint body, and progress in their implementation. In relation to the latter requirement, parties are therefore asked whether they have established joint or coordinated management plans; implemented measures to protect the ecosystems of their transboundary waters; exchanged data and information; conducted joint monitoring and assessment; established joint water quality standards; implemented measures related to accidental pollution, extreme events and mutual assistance; and involved stakeholders in the management of the river, lake or aquifer in question. 27 These questions align closely with part II of the Water Convention, which sets out a series of provisions to be implemented by riparian parties. 28 Many of the questions in section II also align well with the provisions of the Watercourses Convention, including those concerning watercourse agreements (Articles 3 and 4); the establishment of joint commissions (Articles 8(2) and 24); the regular exchange of data and information (Article 9); notification and consul-   23 Water Convention (n 3) art 2. The type of appropriate measures to be adopted is further elaborated upon in ibid art 3. 24 Watercourses Convention (n 2) art 22 (emphasis added). 25 Decision VII/2 (n 19) 7-14. 26 ibid 9-11. 27 ibid 9-14. 28 Water Convention (n 3) arts 9-16. 29

RIEU-CLARKE
Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE), with the support of several IAEG-SDG members, was submitted to the second IAEG-SDG meeting in Bangkok, 26-28 October 2016. The proposal, which sought to measure the proportion of a transboundary basin area covered by an operational arrangement, was received favourably. 32 The indicator was considered 'a significant increase in the aspiration regarding water management compared to previous international commitments'. 33 Following the outcomes of the second IAEG-SDG meeting, UN-Water, which took responsibility for overall coordination of all water-related SDGs, agreed to develop the methodology in support of an indicator on transboundary water cooperation. This task was delegated to UNECE and UNESCO as cochairs of the UN-Water Expert Group on Transboundary Waters, with these agencies ultimately becoming 'custodian agencies' for the indicator. 34 A working group was convened and wider consultations amongst UN-Water and other experts conducted. The methodology was also tested in five pilot countries (Jordan, the Netherlands, Peru, Senegal and Uganda) before a final version was published in January 2017. 35 A key challenge in the design of the indicator was to produce something that was meaningful, whilst also being relatively straightforward for countries to calculate. These considerations, as well as the criteria set forth by the IAEG-SDGs (as mentioned above), led UN-Water to develop simple criteria for the indicator. First, transboundary waters were interpreted broadly to include rivers, lakes and aquifers shared between States. 36 Second, 'arrangement' was defined in a broad sense to encompass any formal arrangements between riparian countries that provide a framework for cooperation on transboundary water management. 37 Third, four key considerations determined whether such arrangements might be considered 'operational'. In line with the requirements under the Water Convention (Article 9) and encouraged under the Watercourses Convention (Articles 8 and 24), for an arrangement to be operational a joint institutional body must be in place and meetings must take place between the parties at least once a year. Also, in line with both global water conventions, countries must exchange data and information at least once per year for an arrangement to be considered operational. 38 Finally, and also in line with both water conventions, for an arrangement to be operational there must be evidence that 'joint or co-ordinated management plan(s), or joint objectives' have been made. 39 SDG indicator 6.5.2 therefore falls short of measuring the quality or outcome of transboundary water cooperation. Complementary approaches to measuring transboundary water cooperation are available but were considered too complex to apply within the SDG indicator framework. 40 It should also be noted that SDG indicator 6.5.2 is complemented by indicator 6.5.1, which measures the degree of integrated water resources management implementation within a country, and includes several questions related to the transboundary level. 41 Insights from the initial reporting exercise for 6.5.1 and 6.5.2 have suggested that, especially where the government experts or departments responsible for reporting on both indicators are not the same, opportunities exist to improve coordination at the national level. 42 Additionally, the results of SDG indicator 6.5.2 can also be analysed together with more outcome-oriented SDG indicators, such as those concerning water quality, water stress or water-related ecosystems.
Initially, SDG indicator 6.5.2 was classified by IAEG-SDG as a tier III indicator. 43 Tier III indicators are those that have no internationally established methodology or standards but the methodology is being developed or tested. 44 SDG indicator 6.5.2 was later upgraded to Tier II classification at the fifth IAEG-SDG meeting in where the indicator is relevant'. 46 In a short period of time SDG indicator 6.5.2 has therefore become well established within the SDG monitoring framework. This is largely due to the success of the first reporting exercise, which will be discussed in the next section. 32 UN-Water, 'UN-Water Statement to the 2nd IAEG-SDG meeting in Bangkok, 26-28 October 2015' <https://unsta ts.un.org/sdgs/files /meeti ngs/iaeg-sdgs-meeti ng-02/State ments /UNSSO %20sta tement_Goal%206%20-%20Oct %202015.pdf>. 33 ibid. 34 Custodian agencies are main UN agencies (or in some cases other international organizations) that have the responsibility of compiling and verifying country data and submitting that data to the UN Statistics Division. The agencies are also responsible for developing international standards and methodologies for each indicator to ensure that country data is internationally comparable. See generally, UN-Water, 'Roles and Responsibilities SDG Monitoring and Reporting' <https://www.sdg6m onito ring.org/activ ities /roles -and-respo nsibi lities>.

| THE REP ORTING PRO CE SS
Early on in the reporting process it became evident that, while separate processes, there were close parallels between reporting under the Water Convention and reporting under SDG indicator 6.5.2. For instance, many of the questions that were asked in section II of the reporting template for the Water Convention, such as what rivers, lakes and aquifers a country shares, whether an arrangement and/or joint body is in place, and whether a country exchanges data or information, also were relevant for determining the SDG indicator 6.5.2 calculation, and more specifically whether an arrangement was operational based on the aforementioned criteria.
It was therefore decided by the custodian agencies to align the two processes. This was effectively achieved by using a similar reporting template to report under SDG indicator 6.5.2 and the Water Convention. In January 2017, all 153 countries sharing transboundary waters were invited by the custodian agencies to report under SDG indicator 6.5.2, and 42 riparian parties were at the same time invited to report under the Water Convention (see Another challenge related to the timeliness of reporting concerned the need for the custodian agencies to seek clarifications on many of the reports submitted by countries. Once a national report was submitted, the custodian agencies carried out a number of checks. 48 First, the SDG indicator 6.5.2 calculation was checked.
Second, the agencies checked whether there were consistencies in the answers given in the reporting template, and the arrangements claimed to be operational based on the SDG indicator calculation. Third, where a country identified an aquifer as falling within the scope of a transboundary basin arrangement, the custodian agencies checked if the aquifer was fully encompassed within the basin area.
Lastly, to verify that the report was official, the agencies checked that it had been signed by a country representative. While the agencies went back to countries requesting clarifications, this proved to be a time-consuming endeavour, and they were only able to secure clarifications from 62 countries. During the initial exercise, the SDG indicator 6.5.2 is therefore only available for 62 of the 107 reports that were submitted.

| Results of SDG indicator 6.5.2 reporting
While much can be learned from the reporting process during the initial exercise, a number of important insights can also be derived from an analysis of the national reports. However, at the outset it should be recognized that these findings should be considered in

RIEU-CLARKE
The level of diversity found in the adoption of agreements and other arrangements can also be found in relation to joint institutional arrangements. While the most common institutional model would appear to be the basin or bilateral commission, countries have also entered into other types of arrangements, such as establishing regular meetings between experts from the riparian countries that share a particular river, lake or aquifer. 78 An additional point to note is that often these institutional bodies develop subsidiary bodies that take on a range of topics, including flooding, water protection, hydrogeology and groundwater, hydrology, water quality, navigation, institutional development, socio-economic uses, land management, environment and biodiversity, communication, finance, pollution prevention, accidental pollution, monitoring, data management and legal issues. 79 The diversity of topics covered by these institutional arrangements also reflects their flexibility to change over time in response to new and emerging challenges. 80

| Results of Water Convention reporting
Given that almost all riparian parties reported, the results of Water Convention reporting offer a more comprehensive overview of progress in its implementation, compared to SDG indicator 6.5.2 reporting. 81 In general, these results suggest significant progress in the imple- Results of the reporting exercise also suggested that there has been a concerted effort by riparian parties to implement these agreements and other arrangements through the adoption of joint or coordinated management plans, the setting of joint objectives, measures to protect ecosystems of transboundary waters, data and information exchange, as well as joint monitoring and assessment. 84 However, the reporting has also revealed that certain requirements of the Water Convention are less well implemented, such as provisions related to joint water quality standards, accidental pollution, extreme events and public participation. 85 While this demonstrates a need to further strengthen the implementation of the Water Convention across its parties, it is also shows that countries were willing to identify both strengths and limitations in implementation when reporting during the first reporting exercise. Completion of all sections of the template offers important supplementary information to the SDG indicator 6.5.2 calculation, and also allowed countries to highlight other areas of cooperation beyond the criteria for operationality, such as any benefits or challenges in entering into arrangements. These completed reports therefore offer a rich data source on current progress in support of transboundary water cooperation, which is likely to gain greater value as more

| Lessons learned and next steps
States report and the quality of the reporting improves. 92 A revised template was adopted at the eighth session of the Another important outcome of the reporting exercise can be seen at the national and transboundary levels, where the process of reporting has helped to highlight the importance of transboundary water cooperation across a wide range of stakeholders, and also offered a systematic process by which to review a country's cooperative efforts. 102 In some instances, this exercise has been done at the transboundary level, and involved river basin commissions, thus helping to build a common understanding of transboundary water cooperation at the basin or sub-basin levels. 103 As the reporting exercise progresses, further opportunities to use reporting as a means 91 ibid.

RIEU-CLARKE
by which to collectively monitor progress and identify areas that might be strengthened are likely. States within a particular basin may therefore consider using reporting as a means by which to set specific targets for that basin, which might be monitored and reviewed during each reporting cycle. As all countries use a common reporting template, lessons on how key challenges might be addressed could be gained from reviewing the experiences of countries from different regions.
Reporting also offers great potential for the parties to the noted 'with concern that certain common challenges to implementation and compliance remain and that some Parties appear to face specific challenges in implementation and compliance'. 104 As a non-confrontational and transparent body of independent experts (both legal and technical) established to support and facilitate parties in addressing issues of implementation and compliance, the Implementation Committee can play an important role in maximizing the value of reporting. 105 Parties to the Water Convention can also use reporting as an important input into its tri-annual work programme, which is de-

| CON CLUS ION
The need to strengthen transboundary water cooperation around the world is evident. Water cooperation can play an important role in addressing pressing and interrelated challenges, including climate change, ecosystem degradation, population pressure and water insecurity. It is also evident that, while many countries have benefitted from cooperation over their shared rivers, lakes and aquifers, much work is left to do to ensure the necessary legal and institutional frameworks are in place at the basin and sub-basin levels. The entry into force of the Watercourses Convention, and the opening of the Water Convention to all UN member States, are important signs of progress in recognizing the importance of having such legal and institutional arrangements in place.
As noted at the outset of this article, the benefits of reporting have long been recognized. 108 However, reporting on transboundary water cooperation is certainly lagging behind over environmental concerns. To some extent, given the difficulty States have faced in reaching consensus on transboundary water sharing arrangements, the slow progress within a transboundary water context is understandable. It is therefore remarkable that a commitment to transboundary water cooperation was contained in the SDG framework, and this was bolstered by the introduction of SDG indicator 6.5.2 and its reporting mechanism. Given these challenges it is also perhaps not surprising that reporting is complex, that is, instead of one clear compliance system for all States sharing transboundary waters, two systems (SDG 6.5.2 and the Water Convention) are in place. However, the fact that both mechanisms are indeed coordinated, and the first reporting cycle was a relative success -albeit with the evident need for some adjustments -offers great promise for the future. While early days, these reporting mechanisms may well have sowed the seeds for a more transparent and collaborative system for treaty compliance as envisaged in Chayes and Chayes' 'managerial approach'; 109 and one that offers the potential to help ensure that transboundary waters are ultimately managed in an equitable and sustainable manner.