118
9 Why, What, How?—The Assessment Framework
(fc) authority and flexibility in decision-making and problem-solving.
The above list of indicators differs on three instances from the raw hydropolitical matrix described above. First, no further inquiry will be carried out concerning
the presence of a legal framework to govern co-riparian relations in the European
Union as this issue has been comprehensively exhausted in Part II. While this regulatory framework may suffer from significant shortcomings, it nonetheless amounts
to a robust legal structure that—through substantive obligations, procedures and
institutions—serves as an undisputed basis for the interaction of basin states within
the EU. Second, an additional indicator is included on cooperation between riparian
states over planned interventions into shared waters. This indicator informs about the
implementation of the legal principle of “notification concerning planned measures
with possible adverse effects” outlined in detail by the UN Watercourses Convention. Also, the existence and the operation of formal institutions of water cooperation
within the EU has already been discussed in Part II extensively, so there is no need
for further elaboration on that subject. Finally, the static description of hydropolitical stability will be supplemented by a qualitative analysis of the dynamic aspect
of resilience, notably the adaptive capacity of these institutions to adjust to new
hydrological and political challenges along three sub-indicators:
– coordination among the different levels and actors;
– transfer of information and feedback; and
– authority and flexibility in decision-making and problem-solving.
Given the distinct character of the adaptive capacity analysis, its findings will be
summarised in a chapter separate from the formal legal-institutional assessment of
EU transboundary water governance (see Chap. 11).
References
Cosens B (2010) Transboundary river governance in the face of uncertainty: resilience theory and
the Columbia River treaty. J. Land, Resour. Environ. Law 30:229–265
Delli Priscoli J, Wolf A (2009) Managing and transforming water conflicts. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge
Garmestani A, Benson M (2013) A framework for resilience-based governance of social-ecological
systems. Ecol. Soc. 18(1):9–20
Wolf A (2009) Hydropolitical vulnerability and resilience. In: UNEP (eds) Hydropolitical vulnerability and resilience along international waters—Europe. Nairobi
9 Why, What, How?—The Assessment Framework
(fc) authority and flexibility in decision-making and problem-solving.
The above list of indicators differs on three instances from the raw hydropolitical matrix described above. First, no further inquiry will be carried out concerning
the presence of a legal framework to govern co-riparian relations in the European
Union as this issue has been comprehensively exhausted in Part II. While this regulatory framework may suffer from significant shortcomings, it nonetheless amounts
to a robust legal structure that—through substantive obligations, procedures and
institutions—serves as an undisputed basis for the interaction of basin states within
the EU. Second, an additional indicator is included on cooperation between riparian
states over planned interventions into shared waters. This indicator informs about the
implementation of the legal principle of “notification concerning planned measures
with possible adverse effects” outlined in detail by the UN Watercourses Convention. Also, the existence and the operation of formal institutions of water cooperation
within the EU has already been discussed in Part II extensively, so there is no need
for further elaboration on that subject. Finally, the static description of hydropolitical stability will be supplemented by a qualitative analysis of the dynamic aspect
of resilience, notably the adaptive capacity of these institutions to adjust to new
hydrological and political challenges along three sub-indicators:
– coordination among the different levels and actors;
– transfer of information and feedback; and
– authority and flexibility in decision-making and problem-solving.
Given the distinct character of the adaptive capacity analysis, its findings will be
summarised in a chapter separate from the formal legal-institutional assessment of
EU transboundary water governance (see Chap. 11).
References
Cosens B (2010) Transboundary river governance in the face of uncertainty: resilience theory and
the Columbia River treaty. J. Land, Resour. Environ. Law 30:229–265
Delli Priscoli J, Wolf A (2009) Managing and transforming water conflicts. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge
Garmestani A, Benson M (2013) A framework for resilience-based governance of social-ecological
systems. Ecol. Soc. 18(1):9–20
Wolf A (2009) Hydropolitical vulnerability and resilience. In: UNEP (eds) Hydropolitical vulnerability and resilience along international waters—Europe. Nairobi