Water as a common good? Academic differences and their impact on the 2023 United Nations Water Conference

The United Nations (UN) 2023 Water Conference – formally the Conference for the Midterm Comprehensive Review of Implementation of the UN Decade for Action on Water and Sanitation (United Nations General Assembly, 2020) – took place in New York, on the 22nd–24th of March 2023.

Influential experts (economists, lawyers, human rights (HRs) activists) and organizations referred to water as a common good (or more rarely a commons or a public good) on the occasion of the 2023 Water Conference. For example, the UN Secretary-General referred to water as ‘a global common good’ (Guterres, 2022) before the Conference and during his closing speech (United Nations, 2023d). According to an official summary of this gathering, panelists and participants emphasized the need to promote water as a common good (Kőrösi, 2023). Just before the Conference, the Special Envoy for International Water Affairs of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, one of the two countries sponsoring the Conference, had co-signed an article stressing the urgent need to consider ‘water and the water cycle as a global common good’ (Ovink et al., 2023). That same month, other scholars – including a former vice-chair of the UN Water platform – argued that water should be governed ‘as a global commons’ (Dombrowsky et al., 2023). At a time when complex and severe water challenges are well understood and receive top attention from media, academia, civil society, governments, and international organizations, such a strong focus cannot remain unnoticed. In some statements, it is possible to infer with a high degree of confidence why the concept ‘common good’ is used. For example, this kind of declaration ‘Access to water and sanitation are fundamental human rights. Water is a common good, and must be accessible to all (…) under public control and not a commodity’ (The People's Water Forum, 2023) is very clear. However, the European Commission's President defined water as a ‘collective good’ and as a ‘common good’ (von der Leyen, 2023); and there are no clues to understand why she used different concepts. What do senior water experts, diplomats and top politicians have in mind when referring to water as a common good, a commons, or as a public good? One may wonder whether these concepts are used interchangeably (Sabzalieva & Quinteiro, 2022), just to avoid redundancy while adopting what is perceived as new terminology to seem up to date without thinking much about policy implications. Or, on the contrary, if each speaker intends to use a precise concept with a precise definition. In this case, one may also wonder whether the use of the same concept by people representing different disciplines, apparently a consensus, is in reality hiding different visions and propositions. Therefore, in the next sections, we shall research the understanding of common goods (or related concepts) in various disciplines.

Let us start by quoting the foundational work of the first woman to win the Nobel Prize in Economics. In Governing the Commons (originally published in 1990), Ostrom (2021) studies negotiation practices, institutional systems, and community involvement in the context of shared resources (including water for irrigation). She uses the concept of common-pool resources (CPR), defining it as natural or man-made resource systems that are large enough to make it costly (yet not impossible) to exclude potential beneficiaries from obtaining benefits from its use (Ostrom, 2021, p. 30). Indeed, in economics, goods have often been classified according to two characteristics, namely the possibility of exclusion (using a tariff or a physical barrier for example) and rivalry in consumption. This classification can usefully be employed to describe the physical reality of certain goods– in our case water, and in particular to explain some of the problems which goods classified as ‘common’ or ‘public’ would likely suffer from (Brando et al., 2019, p. 557).

Author's elaboration from Kaul et al. (2003, pp. 22–23), Ostrom (2021) and Leyronas et al. (2020, p. 6), and the study of Musgrave's contribution in defining public goods published by Desmarais-Tremblay (2014, p. 14). Commons, common goods, and CPR are often used as synonymous. Rivalry is relevant only if all simultaneous water demands (or withdrawals) cannot be met by the amount of water available at that moment. When considering water consumption, rivalry is quantity dependent. Moreover, it should be kept in mind that Elinor Ostrom (2014, 2021) studied irrigation systems, not drinking water (DW) services.

Very likely, Table 1 is the kind of table scholars from well-known institutes dealing with economics or climate change have in mind, for they explain that (green) water ‘can be public, private or a common good, depending on where it is’ (Rockström et al., 2023, p. 796). Similarly, other researchers (Leyronas et al., 2016) have pointed out that groundwater resources are common because it is difficult and costly to exclude anyone from digging a well, and most of the time water withdrawals by one user typically reduce the amount available for other users (in this case, commons is used as synonymous with common goods). At first sight, Table 1 corroborates Hardin's well-known article, The Tragedy of Commons (1968): If consumption is rival and nobody is excluded from access, resources are in danger. Hardin is famous for his allegory of sheepherders inexorably depleting a pasture open to all; still, in the same article, he observed that the commons are also affected by pollution, that is negative externalities. In that case, it is no longer a question of taking something out of the commons, that is a matter of (over)consumption, ‘but of putting something in – sewage, or chemical, radioactive, and heat wastes into water’ (Hardin, 1968, p. 1245). In both cases of overconsumption and pollution, his narrative applies to surface freshwater or aquifers (Bruni, 2011, pp. 40–52). Therefore, the multiple uses of water and the multiple users of water resources have to be considered.

Elinor Ostrom is not quoted only by economists: ‘Legal scholars ranging across a range of political camps’ (Rose, 2020) has been challenged by her essay Governing the Commons. Many of those scholars focused on property theory (property is not considered in Table 1) and/or Environmental Law (Rose, 2020). Indeed, an approach considering only rivalry and excludability ‘is a positive analysis completely separate from the legal-policy implications of the resource’ (Bailey, 2020, p. 249). Mattei (2011, p. 32), a Professor of Civil Law and Comparative Law, denounces the fact that the involvement of private companies in the provision of DW dispossesses the local communities of their commons; consequently, he insists on both the ownership of water resources and the involvement of people in a collective way. We could say that his stance is similar to a call for the recognition of ownership or tenure rights (or clear entitlements) for local communities. Another Italian jurist considered that the management of water as a common good is a matter related to the constitutional asset of a country since such an important resource cannot be left to the market alone (Rodotà, 2012). The current UN Special Rapporteur on the human right to DW and sanitation affirms that since water is one of the key elements of life, ‘it has traditionally been considered a common good. With the increasing role of the State, water, as with other common goods, came to be considered a public good to be managed in the public interest.’ (Arrojo Agudo, 2021). Moreover, during the 8th World Water Forum, the judges who administer water justice gathered in Brasilia affirmed that water is a Public Interest Good; therefore, ‘the State should exercise stewardship over all water resources, and protect them, in conjunction with their associated ecological functions, for the benefit of current and future generations, and the Earth community of life’ (Judges, 2018).

It seems that ‘advocates for the human right to water gain considerable political and moral purchase from appeals to the commons’ (Schmidt & Mitchell, 2014); nonetheless, they are not worried about issues of rivalry in consumption. Kornfeld (2012) studies situations in which water can be considered a public good and – again – his discernment is based on ownership, not on rivalry in consumption. Similarly, Di Robilant (2011, pp. 1370–1371) focuses on common ownership of natural resource commons.

As Barbier et al. (2019) narrate, in the 1990s, civil society groups were fighting the Dublin Statement released at the end of the International Conference on Water and the Environment (ICWE), which recognized water as an economic good and the right for all human beings to access clean water at an affordable price, and stressed that ‘Managing water as an economic good is an important way of achieving efficient and equitable use, and of encouraging conservation and protection of water resources’ (ICWE, 1992). Civil society had three main claims: prohibiting the involvement of private companies in DW services; granting everyone the human right to DW; and a democratic governance for water (Barbier et al., 2019, p. 3). This means seeing water chiefly as an end.

In the mid-2000s, Chilean ‘social movements around water emerged with the agenda of de-privatizing water, declaring it a common good’ (Torres-Salinas & Alvez Marin, 2023, p. 117). On the occasion of the referendum on the involvement of private operators in water services in Italy, those who campaigned against such involvement described their struggle as an anti-neoliberal battle for water as a common good against a neoliberal trend of water marketization or privatization (Cernison, 2019, pp. 71–77). Other anti-privatization campaigns were studied by Bakker (2007, p. 441) and she observed that several activists were promoting ‘alternative concepts of property rights, most frequently some form of the commons, to motivate their claims, juxtaposing this view to that of water as a commodity.’

These claims are totally disconnected from issues of rivalry or exclusion during consumption; moreover, indirect interest or use of water (for the ecosystems or for navigation) are not considered. These claims and similar ones seem to focus on the importance of water for life and on the fear of private operators and profit maximization-oriented management. Privatization, for the scope of this article, can be simply defined using three examples.

• The involvement of private operators in water services (chiefly water supply, and management of wastewater) under a Government contract (or license) or some sort of PPP. Thus, the issue is not strictly speaking about the ownership of water, even if in some cases the private operator is the owner of the network.

• The trading of water rights or water endowments in a market that follows merely a ‘supply-demand’ scheme. Therefore, at least in theory, huge amounts of water can be acquired and used by the wealthiest for whatever purpose, while the poor can afford and thus access a smaller quantity of water, even if they intend to use it for important purposes. Thus, the concern is not per se about water rights or endowments but chiefly about the fact that an unregulated market would be unfair and create distortions about a natural resource that was initially intended to be used by all. Sen (2001) highlighted the fact that the market could not effectively supply public goods; he defined the latter as goods which are fundamental for our well-being and which are jointly consumed by all, such as water. It has also been affirmed that the ‘trading of water use rights in markets has eroded the notion of water as a common good’ (United Nations, 2021).

• Concessions or licenses are granted to companies that will use water resources for their business (e.g., mining, energy production, and production of goods including beverages) if the concessions prevent the local inhabitants from benefiting from the water resources they traditionally used (because the quantity of water left for them shrunk, or because simply they can no longer access it). This peculiar example is tangentially related to the question of property or access rights (formal or informal/consuetudinary rights) and water tenure (FAO, 2020).

Quite interestingly, many scholars considering water as a common good or commons means that hydric resources are managed by communities according to given rules. For instance, Distaso & Ciervo (2011) consider that water, when managed within a community characterized by strong reciprocal trust and interpersonal relations, is a common good; their purpose is to propose local community management of water as a preferential alternative to both public (State) and private management. French researchers, who analyze the difficulties of Public–Private Partnerships (PPP) in Bolivia, reached the conclusion that small water systems that are managed by communities of persons according to precise organizational rules constitute ‘genuine commons’ (Botton et al., 2017). On the contrary, Hardin (1968) asserts that commons are unprotected precisely because rules are either absent or not implemented. Indeed, there has been some ambiguity about the understanding of resources and the form of governance. Therefore, the following clarification is necessary: Defining a given amount of water (e.g., a spring, a lake) as a common good or a CPR does not imply that there is a governance system in place for that water, and even less that such a governance system is effective. It has been written, maybe a bit abruptly, that ‘Hardin confused resources with governance’; the same scholars made the following clarification: ‘To describe commons as the resource subject to tragedy is a category error. Commons are not, and should not be conflated with resources. They are neither common-pool resources nor public goods; these types of sharable goods may, however, be governed as or within commons’ (Frischmann et al., 2019). ‘Common goods do not simply exist – they require appropriate legal, policy and institutional frameworks for governance’ adds Mazzucato (2023).

Therefore, the question of (the institutions and procedures for) water management is central. After analyzing both success stories and failures, Ostrom proposed an inspiring list of principles (Ostrom, 2021, p. 90) that allow for long-term management of the CPR. Her list includes, for example, a clear definition of the rights to withdraw water; the accountability of the persons in charge of monitoring; the effectiveness of conflict-resolution mechanisms; and the recognition by the appropriate level of governmental authorities of the right of the communities to devise their own institutional settings. Similar principles are deemed very relevant in a number of case studies and guidelines addressing water tenure and water rights (FAO, 2016), water management at the local level (Querol, 2019, p. 47), the participation of local communities (Hefny, 2010; Roekmi et al., 2018; Bruns, 2023), and the management of common pools of water (Zulfiqar et al., 2021). Taken as a whole, the aforementioned case studies and guidelines take into consideration the multiple uses of water: supply of DW, flood risk reduction, drought management, irrigation, production of goods and energy, fisheries, and navigation. Clearly, water management is not always about consuming water or, in other words, according to circumstances water can be an end or a means for other purposes. For example, the water cycle is being considered a global common good (Ovink et al., 2023): This is clearly a manner of emphasizing the functions and services provided by the water cycle, nobody is seriously considering it as a pool of resources in the narrow sense of consumers tapping into the water cycle. Similarly, the oceans have been considered commons or public goods for their function or services (in the climate mechanisms and/or in supplying fish), not as a resource in itself (Samuelson & Nordhaus, 1992, p. 268,311). It has been recommended that the ocean ‘should be considered as global commons and protected by an appropriate system of governance.’ (Edenhofer & Flachsland, 2021) Indeed, strictly speaking, nobody is consuming the ocean, yet, it can be progressively polluted thus losing some of its invaluable functions at the service of the entire Earth. Unsurprisingly, it has been observed that many scholars consider freshwater as a global commons referring to the functions of hydric resources rather than to water as an entity (Herrfahrdt-Pähle et al., 2019, p. 3).

Disciplines clearly have different understandings of the same concepts and understanding the implications of each concept ‘has important implications for social scientists who seek to inform public debate on water issues’ (Wagner, 2012). Therefore, the following hypothesis is developed: consistent academic-related patterns can be observed by analyzing the statements released for the 2023 UN Water Conference.

In order to test this hypothesis, a list of recent quotes (2022–2023) from influential sources was compiled: It includes contributions from the UN, well-established think-tanks, senior scholars and water-practitioners, top-level diplomats and politicians. The list is made of 21 texts related to the UN Water Conference, in which water is referred to as a common good or a public good 30 times (Table 2).

The identification of key variables (Serebnick & Quinn, 1995) or well-defined categories (Patil & Taillie, 1982) is a first step for assessing diversity. The following elements have thus been gathered for each quote:

• author(s) or speaker(s) profile and/or academic background (for example if they can be considered as economists or lawyers);

• precise concept, that is the terminology used in each case (in a few cases, different terms are used in the same text);

• if applicable, the reason, that is whether the context explains why a given terminology is being used;

• if applicable, the intention, that is whether the context explains what is being proposed by the author(s).

Context, here, implies the closest intelligible context, that is the few words or lines (in the same paragraph) preceding or following the terminology. It does not seem logical to search several paragraphs further down the same document hoping to understand why a specific concept is used. Inferring the reason or intention (policy prescription) with a reasonable level of confidence of given authors simply reading their statements or papers is possible only when the words or sentences surrounding the targeted terminology are explicit. For example, the reason is clear in the following texts:

On the other hand, the intention is clear for example in the following excerpts:

Commons or common good: these terms appear 20 times (66.66% of the total of the quotes). Out of those 20 times, on 6 occasions the authors can be associated with a background in economics and only twice with a background in law or HRs. The intentions of the speaker relate four times to the improvement of water economics, six times to collaboration issues, and twice to governance.

Public good: it appears nine times (30% of the total). The speakers are related to international organizations, parliaments, governments, or local administration, and one of them also has an economic background. On two occasions, the authors are motivated by the fact that water is a vital element, and once by concerns about water ownership.

It seems that speakers from both economics and non-economics backgrounds are comfortable with the concept of commons or common goods and that only speakers with a non-economics background seem to be comfortable with the concept of water as a public good. Collective good appears only once in our list of quotes and can thus be considered an insignificant element.

Affordable pricing and avoiding commodification: they jointly appear eight times. Quite interestingly, speakers of all backgrounds, except for economics, expressed this intention.

Authors with a background in economics: The intentions of affordable pricing and avoiding commodification are never raised.

Improving water-related economics is mentioned four times as an intention, and governance just once.

Water management as a public interest: three times. The speakers come from civil society, local governments or parliaments, and international organizations, some of them also with a HRs background. Quite interestingly again, no speaker with economic background expressed this intention.

Promote collaboration: five times. Speakers of all backgrounds except for HR, used the concept; the speakers who promote collaboration do not use the concept of public good.

Improve water economics: four times, and twice the speaker has a background in economics.

Public good: it appears nine times (as already said); it is used six times in opposition to privatization or private companies (including twice when the author's intention is increasing investments at the government level).

Two authors call for a greater commitment at the State level, and they used the concept of public good.

Interconnectedness: this reason appears six times. It is the most frequent reason, followed by the fact that water is a vital or crucial resource (four times) or an HR (twice). Other reasons appear only once each. Quite interestingly, this reason (interconnectedness) is used only by International Organizations and speakers with an economic background, and never by speakers using the concept of public good.

Commons or common good: as already stated this expression appears 20 times. On six occasions, the authors had in mind interconnectedness as a reason or motivation to use that concept. Twice the reason was that water is a vital or critical element. Reasons linked to the HRs or to theoretical subtlety appear only once.

The fact that several texts refer to water as a global common good (and more rarely as a glocal) also deserves a mention. In addition, on 13 occasions it is unclear why the concept of public good or common good is used.

The three speakers labeled as lawyers interestingly affirmed that water is a common good or a public good because it is vital or a human right; while interconnectedness is not among their reasons, as already outlined.

We have to acknowledge the fact that top political statements – at least before, during and shortly after the UN Water Conference – frequently lacked a precise reason for using a specific term. It is not always possible to understand why a given International Organization or political leader uses a specific term. First of all, because 9 times out of 27 the reason for using a specific term is unclear. Moreover, when considering the reasons and the speaker's intention in the few cases in which the concept of public good is used, we can conclude that such a use is often very ambiguous.

We can observe a gap between the speakers and authors labeled with an ‘economic background’ (four texts representing a total of seven quotes) and most of the remaining ones. Both groups use the concept of common good or commons, but some concerns or intentions (mainly improving water economics) seem to belong chiefly or only to speakers with a background in economics. The latter also seems to avoid or discard other concerns (such as promoting the human right to DW, affordability or avoiding commodification) or given terms (public good, public interest). Speakers with a background in economics also frequently insist on governance and collaboration. Moreover, water seems to be seldom perceived as a public good by the authors labeled as economists. On the contrary, Rockström et al. (2023, p. 796) affirm quite abruptly that ‘public ownership undervalues water’. Water is a finite resource; therefore, according to these scholars, public ownership systematically ‘promotes excessive, unsustainable and inequitable use’ as well as discouraging private investment. Consequently, they recommend reshaping water markets and consider water as an asset. A similar position is adopted by Mazzucato (2023).

On the other hand, a second group can be identified (even if a bit approximate). It encompasses several authors or speakers without an economic background who focus on the following themes: HRs to DW, avoiding water privatization or commodification, and pushing for greater public involvement at a national or local level. Interconnectedness is not one of their top reasons for considering water a common good. Also, they do not insist on the global dimension. This group includes almost all those using the concept of public good (but is not restricted to them); it encompasses representatives of civil society, lawyers, local administration, an Ambassador (United Nations, 2023c), the current UN Special Rapporteur on the rights to DW and sanitation, and the President of Slovenia. When they say that water is a public good, their intention is to avoid the commodification of water.

As we have seen, some statements mentioned the global level or used the neologism ‘glocal’. In given cases, the concept ‘global’ is used for commons or common goods. It indicates that water, at least in some circumstances, requires effective governance from the global level to the local level (the latter alone being insufficient). For example, the water cycle or the oceans. The joint management of transboundary rivers and aquifers also requires a strong political will at the highest level and collaboration at the local level (Priscoli, 2019). However, at higher levels, ‘laws and policies are not automatically implemented, administered, enforced or complied with. They require interpretation and operationalization through the development of adequate devices. Such devices, hereafter identified as ‘meso-institutions’, are essential to make policies and the governance of programmes associated with these policies functional, making a difference for both stakeholders and the effective management of water resources and services’ (Ménard et al., 2018, p. 14). There are many flaws in the design of these meso-institutions or in the responsibilities they are allocated which affect their capacity to bridge the gaps between the global level (at which general rules are established) and local, especially in poor areas (UNESCO & UN Water, 2023, p. 50).

As already noted by Cox et al. (2010), several authors question the applicability of Ostrom's principles to cases larger in scale than those she described in Governing the Commons. Berkes (2005, p. 19), for example, raises the issue very clearly: ‘Globalization has a major impact on local-level resource management through such mechanisms as the creation of international markets. Can a theory of the commons, based on local-level cases, be scaled up to deal with the complexity of communities and social-political networks?’ Young (2002) argues that this is unlikely to be the case. Empirically, the concept of glocal means so far very little. As a French economist put it (Giraud, 2022), it is hard to conceive a world constantly meeting and deliberating in order to jointly manage global shared goods without forgetting the minorities, the poor, and the future generations.

Furthermore, many local communities felt the pressure and have started to engage in transnational mobilizations to express their concerns and secure their local commons such as water resources. According to some authors, this process may lead to the adoption and institutionalization of global principles and modes of framing and claiming which, in the long run, can interfere with and may even go against local understandings, meaning, and rooted struggles or initial claims made by local communities. In other words, transnational involvement may lead to misrecognition or exclusion on the ground for community-based organizations (Dupuits et al., 2020). It seems that a global organization around water commons is very difficult, and effective representation (Arrojo Agudo, 2022, para. 27) is indeed a major challenge.

This research involved only a limited number of texts and quotes: A list made of 21 texts related to the UN Water Conference, in which water is referred to as a common good or a public good 30 times. A broader research involving statements at a national level, unrelated to the Conference, may have provided more food for thought. Yet, my purpose was precisely to study the use of the term ‘common good’ (and similar ones) strictly related to this major international gathering since one might expect robust and carefully prepared statements in such important gatherings that ultimately influence policies worldwide. It is hasty and imprudent to say:

• that all these writers represent the views of their profession or of their academic background;

• that the conclusions that can be drawn after the analysis of such a limited number of texts can be interpreted as robust confirmation of the academic differences which have been presented earlier.

However, some observations are quite revealing indeed and in line with academic differences.

The second caveat concerns the inevitable need to standardize these texts, using a limited number of categories for the authors (this is especially true in the case of international organizations), in order to comment on their differences. A more detailed work may have allowed for more nuances, especially on the texts whose intentions are labeled as transversal. Broader research with more quotes may shed more light on non-homogeneity within a single discipline.

The third caveat is about the following finding: ‘only speakers with a non-economics background seem to be comfortable with the concept water as a public good’. In reality, economists recognize that water in given circumstances has some public good component characteristics (Sen, 2010, p. 134); they consider a specific indirect use of water as a public good, for example, its role in the ecosystem services (Young & Loomis, 2014, p. 12) and the non-consumptive use of navigation (Peterson & Hendricks, 2018, p. 357).

Future research could firstly dig deeper by compiling and analyzing a higher number of quotes, for example, national statements and major international documents unrelated to the Conference.

• 1. Significant academic differences exist about the following concepts applied to water: a public good, a common good, or a commons.

• 2. Analyzing a limited number of official statements and influential articles released on the occasion of a major water conference:

• • • is sufficient to demonstrate that the same concepts – an apparent consensus – are used by authors having different policy opinions.

  • • is a methodology which has serious limitations. It cannot be interpreted as a robust confirmation of the aforementioned academic differences and certainly not as a demonstration of the fact that experts with the same academic background tend to frequently express the same policy prescriptions.

• 3. The use of these concepts (with their different implications) at the UN Water Conference illustrates well that water governance at all levels – from local to global – is a major concern.

• 4. A researcher cannot always understand what the speaker really has in mind. At least in some circumstances, we may simply listen to ‘populist statements’ (Mehta, 2003, p. 560) about water challenges lacking a substantial background. In other circumstances, we may assume that words are carefully selected.

On the occasion of the UN 2023 Water Conference, the term common good was frequently applied to water. Such redundant and official promotion of this term cannot go unnoticed and it can rightfully be assumed that this is an important concept for current and incoming water-related challenges.

We observed that academic differences clearly surfaced on the occasion of the aforementioned Conference. It was indeed possible to approximately define two big groups: the texts matching the economic theory of the commons on the one hand, and the others, namely lawyers, governments, and civil society, supporting the involvement of public administration and governments on the other hand.

Some readers may consider this finding a mere academic exercise with little practical relevance; still, if citizens' participation is sought and policies about water tenure or water rights are being drafted, we need consensual terms in order to avoid disappointing Babel effects. And this actually has importance since minimal consistency is necessary to be sure policy-makers and experts are debating, negotiating, and agreeing on the same thing. If big blocks coexist without any attempt to bridge the gap between them by fostering mutual understanding, we can rightfully fear that the solutions to water challenges will seldom be effective and certainly not consensual. Those who proclaim that water is a common good, and a vital element necessary to all, should not neglect the complexity and the tradeoffs which are depicted by the rival/excludable framework set up by economists. On the contrary, those focusing on economics and therefore on the quest for financial sustainability, investments, and alternative financing shall not deny the vital dimension of access to water.

Hopefully, participants in these gatherings will keep in mind the need to reconcile the three major dimensions of water as a common good:

• • Common and integrated water management:

• • o according to subsidiarity (from global to national, meso-institutions, and local levels) and making good use of representation mechanisms,

  • o considering the various aspects of water (not only water consumption) and the multiple benefits that collaboration and a holistic and interconnected approach can generate;

  • o acknowledging that the same water can potentially be a means to achieve different goals and that the importance given to these goals (and thus to water as a means) is context-dependent and can vary significantly according to stakeholders' positioning.

• • Sustainability in order to avoid a tragedy of the commons;

• • Universal access to enough DW since water is a vital resource for all: our common need for water.

Of course, water is such an important cause that it could unite the entire human family. Water management has shaped entire civilizations (Delli Priscoli, 2000; Boccaletti, 2021) and given birth to beautiful institutions, including water tribunals and transboundary agencies. It can be a contribution to mutual understanding and peace (Vinciguerra, 2023). Many disciplines could collaborate to give a better definition and protection to the global commons (Brando et al., 2019). Otherwise, the tragedy of the commons will become a reality for water. One of these disciplines could be etymology. Words such as commons, common, or communal imply that we share (‘co-’) the munus which is a Latin word for both ‘duty-obligation’ and ‘gift-favor’. We shall hold together this twofold meaning: we are obliged to share water in all its forms and have a duty to care for it – but this can be effectively done if we really decide to do so, if we dedicate ourselves, as a gift, to water governance, to ‘communing’ through, for, and from water.

All relevant data are included in the paper or its Supplementary Information.

The authors declare there is no conflict.