10.4 Managing Hydrological Variability
151
states outside the EU. Here, however, member states must only “endeavour” to arrive
at a single plan with fellow co-riparians that are not bound by the directive (Art. 8.).
10.4.3.2 UNECE Law
The UNECE Water Convention does not directly address variability management.
Nonetheless, it contains a number of obligations that require riparian states to cooperate with respect to hydrological extremes. In addition, during the past two decades
the Convention bodies have developed a number of soft-law documents that provide
guidance to manage the various impacts of climate change, the primary driver of
increasing hydrological variability in the European Union. While the latter instruments are legally non-binding, they are seen to contribute significantly to controlling
the hydropolitical risks emanating from intensifying river flow fluctuations (Bernardini 2015).
The starting point under the Convention is the general obligation to prevent,
control and reduce transboundary impact (Art. 1.2., 2.1.). Transboundary impact is
defined as “significant adverse effect […] caused by a human activity” (emphasis
added). Yet, the progressive reading of the Convention text and two decades of
practice confirm that the impacts of naturally occurring hydrological extremes also
fall under this obligation as, eventually, human acts and omissions contribute to the
occurrence, magnitude or the damage potential of these phenomena (Kolliopoulos
2015). Hand in hand with the prevention/mitigation obligation goes the general duty
of riparian states to cooperate on a multitude of water management tasks such as
the joint monitoring and regular assessment of transboundary impacts (including
the quantity of transboundary waters, floods and ice drifts) or the early exchange of
information. Also, in their basin treaties and/or bilateral arrangements riparian states
have to establish warning and alarm procedures as well as contingency plans that
cover hydrological extremes. In case of critical situations parties are under a duty to
assist each other following the procedures laid down by the Convention (Art. 4., 6.,
9., 11., 13-15.).
In addition to the above general framework, the various Convention bodies have
adopted a range of soft-law instruments that provide further assistance to basin states
as to the short and long term management of hydrological variability. First and foremost, the 2009 guidance document on water and climate adaptation is designed to
assist states to tackle a range of climate change-related water issues in a transboundary context, including flood and drought mitigation and response (UNECE 2009).
Equally important are the UNECE Model Provisions on Transboundary Flood Management (UNECE 2006), endorsed by the Meeting of the Parties in 2006, that provide a concrete legislative text that can be used by riparian states in their specific
basin-wide or bilateral arrangements to tackle the challenges of transboundary flood
control. The Model Provisions follow a similar logic as the EU’s Floods Directive,
but, unlike the former, they also cover short term risk assessment and emergence
response (Kolliopoulos 2015).
151
states outside the EU. Here, however, member states must only “endeavour” to arrive
at a single plan with fellow co-riparians that are not bound by the directive (Art. 8.).
10.4.3.2 UNECE Law
The UNECE Water Convention does not directly address variability management.
Nonetheless, it contains a number of obligations that require riparian states to cooperate with respect to hydrological extremes. In addition, during the past two decades
the Convention bodies have developed a number of soft-law documents that provide
guidance to manage the various impacts of climate change, the primary driver of
increasing hydrological variability in the European Union. While the latter instruments are legally non-binding, they are seen to contribute significantly to controlling
the hydropolitical risks emanating from intensifying river flow fluctuations (Bernardini 2015).
The starting point under the Convention is the general obligation to prevent,
control and reduce transboundary impact (Art. 1.2., 2.1.). Transboundary impact is
defined as “significant adverse effect […] caused by a human activity” (emphasis
added). Yet, the progressive reading of the Convention text and two decades of
practice confirm that the impacts of naturally occurring hydrological extremes also
fall under this obligation as, eventually, human acts and omissions contribute to the
occurrence, magnitude or the damage potential of these phenomena (Kolliopoulos
2015). Hand in hand with the prevention/mitigation obligation goes the general duty
of riparian states to cooperate on a multitude of water management tasks such as
the joint monitoring and regular assessment of transboundary impacts (including
the quantity of transboundary waters, floods and ice drifts) or the early exchange of
information. Also, in their basin treaties and/or bilateral arrangements riparian states
have to establish warning and alarm procedures as well as contingency plans that
cover hydrological extremes. In case of critical situations parties are under a duty to
assist each other following the procedures laid down by the Convention (Art. 4., 6.,
9., 11., 13-15.).
In addition to the above general framework, the various Convention bodies have
adopted a range of soft-law instruments that provide further assistance to basin states
as to the short and long term management of hydrological variability. First and foremost, the 2009 guidance document on water and climate adaptation is designed to
assist states to tackle a range of climate change-related water issues in a transboundary context, including flood and drought mitigation and response (UNECE 2009).
Equally important are the UNECE Model Provisions on Transboundary Flood Management (UNECE 2006), endorsed by the Meeting of the Parties in 2006, that provide a concrete legislative text that can be used by riparian states in their specific
basin-wide or bilateral arrangements to tackle the challenges of transboundary flood
control. The Model Provisions follow a similar logic as the EU’s Floods Directive,
but, unlike the former, they also cover short term risk assessment and emergence
response (Kolliopoulos 2015).