10.1 Water Quantity Management and Water Allocation
129
Contrary to the Danube and Rhine Conventions, the Framework Agreement on
the Sava River Basin
21 follows a different, more comprehensive regulatory approach.
Instead of one specific focus area (e.g. pollution) or dominant approach (e.g. quality
management) the Framework Agreement is based on a more holistic view, encompassing all major water uses and transboundary impacts, including navigation, water
quality, hydropower, etc. (see Sect. 8.2.3). Thus the starting point of the Framework
Agreement is the “water regime” that is the “quantity and quality conditions of the
waters […] in space and time influenced by human activities or natural changes”
(Art. 1.3.) (emphasis added). The core objective of the cooperation of riparian states
is therefore to “regulate all issues” in order to secure the “integrity of the water regime
in the Sava River Basin” (Art. 8.1.) (emphasis added). This requires the handling of
water quantity and quality considerations on an equal footing. Consequently, the core
obligation of riparian states is to ensure “water in sufficient quantity and of appropriate quality for […] aquatic ecosystems” and “[…] for navigation and other kinds of
use/utilization” as well as the “effective control of the water regime” (Art. 11.a), b),
e)). Regardless of this progressive regulatory approach, however, the Sava Framework Agreement does not go into details as regards the allocation of water resources
among riparian states in case of conflict. It merely reiterates compliance with the
equitable and reasonable utilisation principle and the no-harm rule as the bottom
line obligation of parties when it comes to sharing the benefits of water use (Art. 7.,
9.). As in the case of other basins, this limited consideration of allocation questions
may turn out to be insufficient in view of the increasing hydrological variability in
the region. E.g. the Sava Basin Analysis Report, carried out for the International
Sava River Basin Commission, forecasts that the expected 15–30%(!) reduction in
mean annual runoff in the coming decades will alter water availability conditions
significantly in the basin (Komatina and Grošelj 2014).
Unlike the Sava Framework Agreement, the other three major European basin
treaties addressed by this study: the Elbe Convention, the Oder Convention and
the Meuse Agreement
22 almost completely ignore quantitative issues. In fact, the
Elbe and Oder treaties are mainly concerned with institutional questions regarding
the establishment and the operation of their respective basin commissions. These
commissions are tasked with various programmatic exercises whose main focus is
pollution prevention and control, monitoring, planning and early warning systems
(although both are also supposed to measure and assess the general hydrological,
including, quantitative situation of their respective river basins). As such, neither of
the two Conventions contains rules governing water quantity management, let alone
allocation mechanisms. While the primary focus of the Meuse Agreement is also
water quality, it nonetheless makes reference to other important aspects of water
management such as flood protection and droughts, or water uses relevant for spatial
planning, agriculture, forestry. The Agreement also underlines the relevance of such
21 Framework Agreement on the Sava River Basin, Kranjska Gora, 3 December 2002.
22 Convention on the International Commission for the Protection of the Elbe, Magdeburg, 8 October
1990, Convention on the International Commission for the Protection of the Oder, Wroclaw, 11 April
1996, International Agreement on the River Meuse, Gent, 3 December 2002.
129
Contrary to the Danube and Rhine Conventions, the Framework Agreement on
the Sava River Basin
21 follows a different, more comprehensive regulatory approach.
Instead of one specific focus area (e.g. pollution) or dominant approach (e.g. quality
management) the Framework Agreement is based on a more holistic view, encompassing all major water uses and transboundary impacts, including navigation, water
quality, hydropower, etc. (see Sect. 8.2.3). Thus the starting point of the Framework
Agreement is the “water regime” that is the “quantity and quality conditions of the
waters […] in space and time influenced by human activities or natural changes”
(Art. 1.3.) (emphasis added). The core objective of the cooperation of riparian states
is therefore to “regulate all issues” in order to secure the “integrity of the water regime
in the Sava River Basin” (Art. 8.1.) (emphasis added). This requires the handling of
water quantity and quality considerations on an equal footing. Consequently, the core
obligation of riparian states is to ensure “water in sufficient quantity and of appropriate quality for […] aquatic ecosystems” and “[…] for navigation and other kinds of
use/utilization” as well as the “effective control of the water regime” (Art. 11.a), b),
e)). Regardless of this progressive regulatory approach, however, the Sava Framework Agreement does not go into details as regards the allocation of water resources
among riparian states in case of conflict. It merely reiterates compliance with the
equitable and reasonable utilisation principle and the no-harm rule as the bottom
line obligation of parties when it comes to sharing the benefits of water use (Art. 7.,
9.). As in the case of other basins, this limited consideration of allocation questions
may turn out to be insufficient in view of the increasing hydrological variability in
the region. E.g. the Sava Basin Analysis Report, carried out for the International
Sava River Basin Commission, forecasts that the expected 15–30%(!) reduction in
mean annual runoff in the coming decades will alter water availability conditions
significantly in the basin (Komatina and Grošelj 2014).
Unlike the Sava Framework Agreement, the other three major European basin
treaties addressed by this study: the Elbe Convention, the Oder Convention and
the Meuse Agreement
22 almost completely ignore quantitative issues. In fact, the
Elbe and Oder treaties are mainly concerned with institutional questions regarding
the establishment and the operation of their respective basin commissions. These
commissions are tasked with various programmatic exercises whose main focus is
pollution prevention and control, monitoring, planning and early warning systems
(although both are also supposed to measure and assess the general hydrological,
including, quantitative situation of their respective river basins). As such, neither of
the two Conventions contains rules governing water quantity management, let alone
allocation mechanisms. While the primary focus of the Meuse Agreement is also
water quality, it nonetheless makes reference to other important aspects of water
management such as flood protection and droughts, or water uses relevant for spatial
planning, agriculture, forestry. The Agreement also underlines the relevance of such
21 Framework Agreement on the Sava River Basin, Kranjska Gora, 3 December 2002.
22 Convention on the International Commission for the Protection of the Elbe, Magdeburg, 8 October
1990, Convention on the International Commission for the Protection of the Oder, Wroclaw, 11 April
1996, International Agreement on the River Meuse, Gent, 3 December 2002.