148
10 The Resilience of Transboundary Water Governance …
The potentially very broad range of measures dealing with hydrological variability
in a transboundary context can be clustered as follows (based on Drieschova et al.
2008 and De Stefano et al. 2012):
• short term measures:
– flexible water allocation mechanisms (e.g. water sharing based on percentages)
that require the automatic adjustment of cross-border river flow to changes in
water availability,
– domestic water management measures aimed to minimise the transboundary
impacts of hydrological extremes (emergency use of reservoirs to store or release
water, stricter irrigation procedures, etc.),
– emergency communication and cooperation mechanisms (data collection and
sharing, early warning, immediate consultations, mutual assistance among riparian states, etc.).
• long term measures:
– regular review of water allocation and relevant water uses,
– joint construction and/or operation of water infrastructure to increase water
supply or store excess water,
– joint long-term planning for and management of hydrological extremes (e.g.
transboundary flood risk mapping),
– broadened cooperation with regards to issues that go beyond flow variability or
the quantitative aspects of water.
10.4.2 Variability Management in International Water Law
Concerns about the natural variability of transboundary river flow are not a new phenomenon in international relations. As Drieschova et al. point out as early as in 1863
the Netherlands and Belgium made allocation of the water resources of the Meuse
conditional on annual variability. Yet, until relatively lately neither water treaties nor
academic research have paid sufficient attention to the issue. As a result, general international water law scarcely addresses variability management in any explicit fashion.
Thus, the various principles of the UN Watercourses Convention—equitable and reasonable utilisation, the obligation not to cause significant harm and the obligation to
cooperate—cover the issue only indirectly. These principles merely imply the duty
of watercourse states to manage hydrological extremes with due attention being paid
to the interests of other riparians. The Convention also calls on watercourse states to
prevent and mitigate, individually and/or jointly, “harmful conditions”, e.g. floods,
droughts or desertification that may have a negative impact on other riparian states
(Art. 27.). When such conditions amount to an emergency situation, i.e. a sudden
event actually or potentially causing serious harm to other watercourse states, the
state of origin must immediately notify the (potentially affected) other riparians and
take all practicable measures to prevent, mitigate or eliminate the harmful effects of
10 The Resilience of Transboundary Water Governance …
The potentially very broad range of measures dealing with hydrological variability
in a transboundary context can be clustered as follows (based on Drieschova et al.
2008 and De Stefano et al. 2012):
• short term measures:
– flexible water allocation mechanisms (e.g. water sharing based on percentages)
that require the automatic adjustment of cross-border river flow to changes in
water availability,
– domestic water management measures aimed to minimise the transboundary
impacts of hydrological extremes (emergency use of reservoirs to store or release
water, stricter irrigation procedures, etc.),
– emergency communication and cooperation mechanisms (data collection and
sharing, early warning, immediate consultations, mutual assistance among riparian states, etc.).
• long term measures:
– regular review of water allocation and relevant water uses,
– joint construction and/or operation of water infrastructure to increase water
supply or store excess water,
– joint long-term planning for and management of hydrological extremes (e.g.
transboundary flood risk mapping),
– broadened cooperation with regards to issues that go beyond flow variability or
the quantitative aspects of water.
10.4.2 Variability Management in International Water Law
Concerns about the natural variability of transboundary river flow are not a new phenomenon in international relations. As Drieschova et al. point out as early as in 1863
the Netherlands and Belgium made allocation of the water resources of the Meuse
conditional on annual variability. Yet, until relatively lately neither water treaties nor
academic research have paid sufficient attention to the issue. As a result, general international water law scarcely addresses variability management in any explicit fashion.
Thus, the various principles of the UN Watercourses Convention—equitable and reasonable utilisation, the obligation not to cause significant harm and the obligation to
cooperate—cover the issue only indirectly. These principles merely imply the duty
of watercourse states to manage hydrological extremes with due attention being paid
to the interests of other riparians. The Convention also calls on watercourse states to
prevent and mitigate, individually and/or jointly, “harmful conditions”, e.g. floods,
droughts or desertification that may have a negative impact on other riparian states
(Art. 27.). When such conditions amount to an emergency situation, i.e. a sudden
event actually or potentially causing serious harm to other watercourse states, the
state of origin must immediately notify the (potentially affected) other riparians and
take all practicable measures to prevent, mitigate or eliminate the harmful effects of