9.2 The Subject of Assessment: Hydropolitical ...
117
In order to expand the existing research base that mainly focuses on the first
dimension of resilience, this study carries out both a formal (static) hydropolitical
assessment as well as a qualitative evaluation of adaptive capacity of transboundary
water governance in the EU.
9.2.2 The Indicators Applied
As outlined in Part I, the various schools of hydropolitics have developed a range of
indicators to measure the stability of co-riparian relations in particular river basins.
These indicators are based on the assumption that the resilience of transboundary
governance can be best assessed with reference to the presence of number of formal
institutional components.
The most commonly used indicators comprise
(a) the presence of a water treaty,
(b) mechanisms for water allocation,
(c) water quality protection,
(d) variability management,
(e) the presence of dispute settlement mechanisms and formal cooperation institutions (see Sect. 6.4.2).
Admittedly, these indicators provide only a raw picture of hydropolitical resilience
as they largely omit the actual political-economic dynamics prevailing among riparian states or the hydrological conditions of the basin. Another limitation is that the
formal institutional indicators offer only a snapshot in a given moment in time, irrespective of the potential of the given system for evolution. Thus, an important factor
of resilience: the capacity to adapt and learn remains completely outside their scope.
Notwithstanding all these constraints, however, the simple and unambiguous nature
of the formal hydropolitical indicator set makes it possible to apply them across a
very wide range governance schemes and to arrive at easily comparable results.
In order to overcome the above shortcomings, the usual set of hydropolitical
indicators have been refined and expanded so as to encapsulate not only the actual
resilience of transboundary water governance in the EU, but also the ability of the
system to adapt to changing hydrological and political conditions. As a result, the
following indicators will be used for the purposes of the subsequent analysis:
(a) water quantity management and water allocation;
(b) water quality protection;
(c) cooperation over planned measures;
(d) management of hydrological variability;
(e) dispute settlement mechanisms;
(f) adaptive capacity of the institutions of transboundary water governance within
the EU as defined by:
(fa) coordination among the different levels and actors;
(fb) transfer of information and feedback; and
117
In order to expand the existing research base that mainly focuses on the first
dimension of resilience, this study carries out both a formal (static) hydropolitical
assessment as well as a qualitative evaluation of adaptive capacity of transboundary
water governance in the EU.
9.2.2 The Indicators Applied
As outlined in Part I, the various schools of hydropolitics have developed a range of
indicators to measure the stability of co-riparian relations in particular river basins.
These indicators are based on the assumption that the resilience of transboundary
governance can be best assessed with reference to the presence of number of formal
institutional components.
The most commonly used indicators comprise
(a) the presence of a water treaty,
(b) mechanisms for water allocation,
(c) water quality protection,
(d) variability management,
(e) the presence of dispute settlement mechanisms and formal cooperation institutions (see Sect. 6.4.2).
Admittedly, these indicators provide only a raw picture of hydropolitical resilience
as they largely omit the actual political-economic dynamics prevailing among riparian states or the hydrological conditions of the basin. Another limitation is that the
formal institutional indicators offer only a snapshot in a given moment in time, irrespective of the potential of the given system for evolution. Thus, an important factor
of resilience: the capacity to adapt and learn remains completely outside their scope.
Notwithstanding all these constraints, however, the simple and unambiguous nature
of the formal hydropolitical indicator set makes it possible to apply them across a
very wide range governance schemes and to arrive at easily comparable results.
In order to overcome the above shortcomings, the usual set of hydropolitical
indicators have been refined and expanded so as to encapsulate not only the actual
resilience of transboundary water governance in the EU, but also the ability of the
system to adapt to changing hydrological and political conditions. As a result, the
following indicators will be used for the purposes of the subsequent analysis:
(a) water quantity management and water allocation;
(b) water quality protection;
(c) cooperation over planned measures;
(d) management of hydrological variability;
(e) dispute settlement mechanisms;
(f) adaptive capacity of the institutions of transboundary water governance within
the EU as defined by:
(fa) coordination among the different levels and actors;
(fb) transfer of information and feedback; and