102
8 Transboundary Water Governance in the European Union
Finally, the WFD introduces a modest quasi dispute resolution mechanism to
facilitate inter-state differences in the above processes. As already mentioned, any
member state whose water management has been impacted by another member state
may “report” the problem to the affected riparian and/or the European Commission,
together with its own recommendations to solve the problem. All the Commission
is required to do, however, is to “respond” to the recommendation of the concerned
party within a period of six months (Art. 12.).
Other pieces of water-related EU legislation also impose certain interstate cooperation obligations. The most notable is the Floods Directive
59 that requires riparian
states to assess and map flood risks as well as to develop flood risk management
plans. It foresees the same type of (rather weak) coordination mechanism as the
WFD, urging member state to exchange data and produce a single risk management
plan for international river basins (Art. 4.3., 8.2.). This directive, however, also contains an important substantive obligation—a rare, but explicit transposition of the
“no-harm” rule into EU law—that prohibits member states to adopt such flood management measures in international river basins that may significantly increase flood
risks downstream or upstream (Art. 7.4.).
In addition, some of the pollution-related water directives also regulate certain
aspects of co-riparian relations. E.g. the priority substances directive addresses the
issue of cross-border pollution in so far as it exempts downstream member states
from their responsibility to meet EU environmental quality standards to the extent
eventual non-compliance is caused by upstream member states (Art. 6., Directive
2008/105/EC). In a less explicit way, the urban waste water directive, too, recognises
upstream-downstream interdependence. Under a rarely applied clause, if a member
state is affected by sewage pollution from another member state, it may notify its
problem to the relevant upstream state and the European Commission. In such cases
the parties are required to hold consultations so as to “ensure conformity with the
directive” (Art. 9., Directive 91/271/EEC).
General EU environmental law also creates important obligations for Member
States in their cross-border water relations, most notably the directives relating to
environmental impact assessment, industrial emissions and environmental liability
(see Sect. 8.3.3). They all establish specific notification and consultation procedures with a view to assessing, preventing or mitigating transboundary freshwater
impacts. These procedures—that are largely modelled on the applicable UNECE
conventions—constitute the framework for the implementation of the “prior notification of planned measures” principle of international water law within the EU (see
Sect. 10.3.3).
59 Directive 2007/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on the
assessment and management of flood risks.
8 Transboundary Water Governance in the European Union
Finally, the WFD introduces a modest quasi dispute resolution mechanism to
facilitate inter-state differences in the above processes. As already mentioned, any
member state whose water management has been impacted by another member state
may “report” the problem to the affected riparian and/or the European Commission,
together with its own recommendations to solve the problem. All the Commission
is required to do, however, is to “respond” to the recommendation of the concerned
party within a period of six months (Art. 12.).
Other pieces of water-related EU legislation also impose certain interstate cooperation obligations. The most notable is the Floods Directive
59 that requires riparian
states to assess and map flood risks as well as to develop flood risk management
plans. It foresees the same type of (rather weak) coordination mechanism as the
WFD, urging member state to exchange data and produce a single risk management
plan for international river basins (Art. 4.3., 8.2.). This directive, however, also contains an important substantive obligation—a rare, but explicit transposition of the
“no-harm” rule into EU law—that prohibits member states to adopt such flood management measures in international river basins that may significantly increase flood
risks downstream or upstream (Art. 7.4.).
In addition, some of the pollution-related water directives also regulate certain
aspects of co-riparian relations. E.g. the priority substances directive addresses the
issue of cross-border pollution in so far as it exempts downstream member states
from their responsibility to meet EU environmental quality standards to the extent
eventual non-compliance is caused by upstream member states (Art. 6., Directive
2008/105/EC). In a less explicit way, the urban waste water directive, too, recognises
upstream-downstream interdependence. Under a rarely applied clause, if a member
state is affected by sewage pollution from another member state, it may notify its
problem to the relevant upstream state and the European Commission. In such cases
the parties are required to hold consultations so as to “ensure conformity with the
directive” (Art. 9., Directive 91/271/EEC).
General EU environmental law also creates important obligations for Member
States in their cross-border water relations, most notably the directives relating to
environmental impact assessment, industrial emissions and environmental liability
(see Sect. 8.3.3). They all establish specific notification and consultation procedures with a view to assessing, preventing or mitigating transboundary freshwater
impacts. These procedures—that are largely modelled on the applicable UNECE
conventions—constitute the framework for the implementation of the “prior notification of planned measures” principle of international water law within the EU (see
Sect. 10.3.3).
59 Directive 2007/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on the
assessment and management of flood risks.