146
10 The Resilience of Transboundary Water Governance …
catchment area.
43 More recent bilateral agreements also lay down precise notification
and consultation requirements. For instance, the 1987 German-Austrian Agreement
on cooperation with regards to the Danube basin
44 defines the types of projects
and works that are subject to prior notice. Parties are under an obligation to avoid
or minimise adverse transboundary impacts and to endeavour to find a mutually
acceptable solution should differences remain (Art. 2–4.).
The Albufeira Convention submits the most relevant such projects to a transboundary environmental impact assessment procedure (Art. 9). Parties must hold extensive consultations with regards to any planned measure with possible transboundary
impact through the implementing commission of the Convention. Should parties fail
to reach an agreement over the planned project any party may trigger the standard
dispute settlement mechanism of the Convention (Art. 8., 26.). The frontier waters
agreement between Finland and Sweden also establishes a detailed notification and
consultation procedure. No permit can be granted to major watercourse projects (i.e.
hydro-power plant, water transfer or regulation) with transboundary impacts before
bilateral consultations have taken place with a view to finding a mutually acceptable
outcome (Art. 20.). Importantly, in the national authorisation procedures the agreement grants the same legal standing to the citizens and groups of the other riparian
as those enjoyed by its own (Art. 16.).
10.3.4 Evaluation
As regards cooperation over planned measures the provisions of the UNECE Water
Convention or those of EU water law appear highly deficient when compared to those
of the UN Watercourses Convention. This virtual regulatory lacuna, however, does
not in any way compromise co-riparian relations within the EU since the issue is
sufficiently regulated by the UNECE Espoo Convention and the EU’s environmental
impact assessment directive. The same applies to the inconsistent coverage of prior
notification and consultation procedures by the major European basin treaties and
bilateral water agreements. In summary: cooperation over planned measures with
likely transboundary impact seems sufficiently regulated within the European Union
at multiple layers. No hydropolitical risk can therefore be identified in this context.
43 See e.g. Article 2.1, Treaty Between the Hungarian People’s Republic and the Republic of Austria
Concerning the Regulation of Water Economy Questions in the Frontier Region, Vienna, 9 April
1956; Article 3, Agreement between the Government of the Czechoslovak Republic and the Government of the Polish People’s Republic Concerning the Use of the Water Resources in Frontier
Water, Prague, 21 March 1958.
44 Agreement between the Federal Republic of Germany and the European Economic Community,
on the one hand, and the Republic of Austria, on the other, on cooperation on management of water
resources in the Danube Basin, Regensburg, 1 December 1987.
10 The Resilience of Transboundary Water Governance …
catchment area.
43 More recent bilateral agreements also lay down precise notification
and consultation requirements. For instance, the 1987 German-Austrian Agreement
on cooperation with regards to the Danube basin
44 defines the types of projects
and works that are subject to prior notice. Parties are under an obligation to avoid
or minimise adverse transboundary impacts and to endeavour to find a mutually
acceptable solution should differences remain (Art. 2–4.).
The Albufeira Convention submits the most relevant such projects to a transboundary environmental impact assessment procedure (Art. 9). Parties must hold extensive consultations with regards to any planned measure with possible transboundary
impact through the implementing commission of the Convention. Should parties fail
to reach an agreement over the planned project any party may trigger the standard
dispute settlement mechanism of the Convention (Art. 8., 26.). The frontier waters
agreement between Finland and Sweden also establishes a detailed notification and
consultation procedure. No permit can be granted to major watercourse projects (i.e.
hydro-power plant, water transfer or regulation) with transboundary impacts before
bilateral consultations have taken place with a view to finding a mutually acceptable
outcome (Art. 20.). Importantly, in the national authorisation procedures the agreement grants the same legal standing to the citizens and groups of the other riparian
as those enjoyed by its own (Art. 16.).
10.3.4 Evaluation
As regards cooperation over planned measures the provisions of the UNECE Water
Convention or those of EU water law appear highly deficient when compared to those
of the UN Watercourses Convention. This virtual regulatory lacuna, however, does
not in any way compromise co-riparian relations within the EU since the issue is
sufficiently regulated by the UNECE Espoo Convention and the EU’s environmental
impact assessment directive. The same applies to the inconsistent coverage of prior
notification and consultation procedures by the major European basin treaties and
bilateral water agreements. In summary: cooperation over planned measures with
likely transboundary impact seems sufficiently regulated within the European Union
at multiple layers. No hydropolitical risk can therefore be identified in this context.
43 See e.g. Article 2.1, Treaty Between the Hungarian People’s Republic and the Republic of Austria
Concerning the Regulation of Water Economy Questions in the Frontier Region, Vienna, 9 April
1956; Article 3, Agreement between the Government of the Czechoslovak Republic and the Government of the Polish People’s Republic Concerning the Use of the Water Resources in Frontier
Water, Prague, 21 March 1958.
44 Agreement between the Federal Republic of Germany and the European Economic Community,
on the one hand, and the Republic of Austria, on the other, on cooperation on management of water
resources in the Danube Basin, Regensburg, 1 December 1987.