116
9 Why, What, How?—The Assessment Framework
of the past millennium. In other words, even the most recent transboundary water
governance innovations in Europe are almost two decades old. Yet, the unfolding new
hydrological phenomena—such as the growing variability of flow volumes and the
continuous degradation of the aquatic environment—raise serious questions about the
adequacy of existing transboundary arrangements already now. As these negatives
tendencies are likely to intensify, they will only further accentuate the mismatch
between the original design parameters of the contemporary governance system and
the unfolding hydropolitical future that will, to a large extent, be characterised by
competing water interests across state borders.
9.2 The Subject of Assessment: Hydropolitical Resilience
and Vulnerability in the European Union
9.2.1 Hydropolitical Resilience and Vulnerability Revisited
The ultimate objective of this study is to map out the potential political risks and
challenges affecting the joint management of shared surface waters within the European Union. Such risks and challenges will be assessed against the ability of the
EU’s transboundary water governance system “to absorb disturbance and reorganise
so as to retain essentially the same function, structure and identity”. Such capacity
“to withstand and recover from stresses”,—drawing on the terminology of general
resilience science—will be referred to as resilience (Cosens 2010).
Challenges to the resilience of transboundary water governance may emerge not
only as a result of the actual misfit between the regime in place and the hydrological
phenomena they are supposed to handle. They may also develop as a result of the
inability of the governance system to adapt to new circumstances. These represent
two interconnected, yet autonomous aspects of the resilience that can be formulated
along the following questions:
– is the existing regime fit to handle current and emerging hydrological and political
challenges in a transboundary context?
– is the existing regime capable of dynamically adapting to new hydrological and
the ensuing political challenges or its evolution is blocked by systemic legal,
institutional or political obstacles?
The first question represents the static dimension of the issue. In this narrower
sense the resilience of transboundary water governance is understood as the presence
(or the lack) of risks of political conflicts over shared water systems within the European Union. This condition can be best analysed through the indicators developed by
various scholars of hydropolitics (Delli Priscoli and Wolf 2009). The second question
relates to the dynamic dimension of resilience that can be evaluated through various
indicators relating to the adaptive capacity of socio-economic systems (Garmestani
and Benson 2013).
9 Why, What, How?—The Assessment Framework
of the past millennium. In other words, even the most recent transboundary water
governance innovations in Europe are almost two decades old. Yet, the unfolding new
hydrological phenomena—such as the growing variability of flow volumes and the
continuous degradation of the aquatic environment—raise serious questions about the
adequacy of existing transboundary arrangements already now. As these negatives
tendencies are likely to intensify, they will only further accentuate the mismatch
between the original design parameters of the contemporary governance system and
the unfolding hydropolitical future that will, to a large extent, be characterised by
competing water interests across state borders.
9.2 The Subject of Assessment: Hydropolitical Resilience
and Vulnerability in the European Union
9.2.1 Hydropolitical Resilience and Vulnerability Revisited
The ultimate objective of this study is to map out the potential political risks and
challenges affecting the joint management of shared surface waters within the European Union. Such risks and challenges will be assessed against the ability of the
EU’s transboundary water governance system “to absorb disturbance and reorganise
so as to retain essentially the same function, structure and identity”. Such capacity
“to withstand and recover from stresses”,—drawing on the terminology of general
resilience science—will be referred to as resilience (Cosens 2010).
Challenges to the resilience of transboundary water governance may emerge not
only as a result of the actual misfit between the regime in place and the hydrological
phenomena they are supposed to handle. They may also develop as a result of the
inability of the governance system to adapt to new circumstances. These represent
two interconnected, yet autonomous aspects of the resilience that can be formulated
along the following questions:
– is the existing regime fit to handle current and emerging hydrological and political
challenges in a transboundary context?
– is the existing regime capable of dynamically adapting to new hydrological and
the ensuing political challenges or its evolution is blocked by systemic legal,
institutional or political obstacles?
The first question represents the static dimension of the issue. In this narrower
sense the resilience of transboundary water governance is understood as the presence
(or the lack) of risks of political conflicts over shared water systems within the European Union. This condition can be best analysed through the indicators developed by
various scholars of hydropolitics (Delli Priscoli and Wolf 2009). The second question
relates to the dynamic dimension of resilience that can be evaluated through various
indicators relating to the adaptive capacity of socio-economic systems (Garmestani
and Benson 2013).