By Windsor Hernani, Vision 360:

Exporting Water to Chile: Bottled Silala Water? It Wouldn’t Be the First Time

The diplomatic corps represents the State, not the government of the day; it pursues state objectives, not personal ones; and it is guided by the national interest, not by private or group interests.

In recent days, Bolivia’s consul general in Santiago, Chile, has appeared in several media outlets to explain the scope of the meeting between the presidents of Bolivia and Chile, as well as the prospects for a new stage in bilateral relations.

During an interview with journalist Mery Vaca, when asked about the management of transboundary water resources, the newly appointed consul replied: “I feel that Bolivia has a lot of water, while the mining industry and Chile have very little water.” Consequently, he proposed that “Bolivia should EXPORT water to Chile.”

The interviewer’s reaction was spontaneous and telling. She responded: “Export water to Chile. That’s the first time I’ve heard it put that way (…)”

Personally, the answer left me bewildered. I thought unusual ideas were a thing of the past. I believed that so-called people’s diplomacy was merely a bad memory, and that the aspiration to project a new image of Bolivia to the world, and of the world to Bolivia, would put an end to wishful thinking, improvisation, and outlandish ideas that would never materialize.

I was wrong. It is always possible to revive an idea from the past, give it a new twist, make it just as unusual—or even more so—and present it as something new.

Let us remember that in June 2014, President Evo Morales Ayma came up with the idea of industrializing Silala water on a small scale as a way of demonstrating ownership of the resource.

The first and only production run yielded 42,000 bottles of Silala water, which were distributed during the G77 plus China Summit. The initiative was presented as an expression of national sovereignty and dignity.

Later, there was talk of continuing the venture and marketing Silala water in bottles.

Why did that initiative never become a regular distribution business? I do not know, although I believe production costs were excessive. What I do know is that a revamped version has now emerged.

I assume the proposal is no longer about bottling Silala water, but rather exporting larger quantities of water through pipelines. Apparently, this would involve some or all of the waters of the Bolivian Altiplano, since the consul claims the region has abundant supplies.

This raises further questions. Is the Bolivian Altiplano really a water-rich region? Does lithium extraction not threaten to leave Indigenous communities in Bolivia without water?

Bolivia’s 1980–2020 Water Balance, published in 2024 by the Ministry of Environment and Water, highlights the vulnerability of this region. It receives an average annual precipitation of 330 millimeters and has runoff of just 25 millimeters, compared with 550 millimeters of runoff in the Amazon basin.

Against this backdrop, the proposal raises several questions: What specific water source would be used? Would it be limited to the border area or involve the entire Altiplano? How would the water be transported—through pipelines, pumping systems, tanker trucks, or artificial canals? How much would the infrastructure cost? What net benefit would Bolivia receive? Or, ultimately, is this simply water that naturally flows into Chile and would now be measured and sold?

Furthermore, it is necessary to understand how Chile applies customs duties to this product. At first glance, there is good news: Bolivian-origin water, in its various forms, enters Chile with a 100% tariff preference under Economic Complementation Agreement No. 22 (ACE No. 22).

The truth is that the consul did not go into detail. The proposal was explained only briefly. It would therefore be appropriate to provide more information so that the public can understand precisely what this business of “exporting water to Chile” actually entails.

Ultimately, I believe the interviewer’s question touched on another issue—one that is far from minor and is, in fact, of the utmost importance. More broadly, she was seeking to establish what the Bolivian State has done in its dealings with the Chilean State regarding the integrated management of existing transboundary water basins.

More specifically, it is also important to know what happened to Silala water after Bolivia’s representatives acknowledged before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) that it constitutes an international watercourse. This issue remains unresolved in the eyes of the Bolivian public, which deserves to know how it will be addressed. Following the Court’s ruling, both Bolivia and Chile are entitled to an equitable and reasonable use of the resource. Yet, to date, only the neighboring country has benefited from its use.

The diplomatic corps represents the State, not the government of the day; it pursues state objectives, not personal ones; and it is guided by the national interest, not by private or group interests. That is why it does not improvise. Every action it takes puts the State’s credibility and standing before the international community at stake.