10.4 Managing Hydrological Variability
155
the summer months “in order to take account of the evaporation from the enlarged
surface area of the Lake”.
10.4.4 Evaluation
The four layers of European water law regulate an important aspect of variability management, notably flood prevention and protection at an exemplary level of
sophistication. Given the high number of catastrophic inundations most international basins in the EU underwent only during this millennium, the complementary
regimes of the Floods Directive, the UNECE Model Provisions and the extensive
cooperation at basin and bilateral level seem to constitute an adequate response to
the collective action problems posed by excessive flow levels. Consequently, insufficient cross-border collaboration with regards to river floods is unlikely to result in
major political tensions in the European Union.
Less positive is the picture when it comes to long term adaptation to hydrological
extremes, especially prolonged droughts. Here, the systematic review of the main
characteristics of each basin, as foreseen by the Water Framework Directive, ensures
that riparian states address changing hydrological conditions on regular and substantive basis. Also, it allows riparian states to have an impact on the joint river basin
management plans and, to a lesser extent, on each other’s programmes of measures.
Yet, neither EU and UNECE law, nor basin treaties call for real adaptation interventions. The various climate change adaptation strategies developed by the river basin
organisations only provide general guidance as to future measures and do not address
the potential of political risks prolonged droughts are likely to pose in transboundary
relations.
Finally, European water law addresses the short term consequences of prolonged
low river flows only marginally. Undoubtedly, the basic principles of transboundary
water cooperation (equitable and reasonable utilisation and the no-harm rule) together
with the various information exchange and notification procedures create a basic
framework to tackle such critical situations. These, however, do not provide any
operative guidance to riparian states as to the immediate adaptation measures to be
taken, including adjustments in transboundary flow allocation. This shortcoming
can, in part, be explained by the fact that hitherto basin-wide extreme droughts have
been relatively rare (apart from the Iberian Peninsula), so there was no real need and
political will to address the contentious issue of national water use or transboundary
flows. In part, however, the root of the problem lies in the notoriously complacent
approach of EU law and decision-makers vis-à-vis the question of transboundary
water allocation (see Sect. 10.1.4). This regulatory lacuna and political timidity may
in the future prove a critical hydropolitical risk, if droughts and scarcity continue to
intensify in a transboundary context as projected.
155
the summer months “in order to take account of the evaporation from the enlarged
surface area of the Lake”.
10.4.4 Evaluation
The four layers of European water law regulate an important aspect of variability management, notably flood prevention and protection at an exemplary level of
sophistication. Given the high number of catastrophic inundations most international basins in the EU underwent only during this millennium, the complementary
regimes of the Floods Directive, the UNECE Model Provisions and the extensive
cooperation at basin and bilateral level seem to constitute an adequate response to
the collective action problems posed by excessive flow levels. Consequently, insufficient cross-border collaboration with regards to river floods is unlikely to result in
major political tensions in the European Union.
Less positive is the picture when it comes to long term adaptation to hydrological
extremes, especially prolonged droughts. Here, the systematic review of the main
characteristics of each basin, as foreseen by the Water Framework Directive, ensures
that riparian states address changing hydrological conditions on regular and substantive basis. Also, it allows riparian states to have an impact on the joint river basin
management plans and, to a lesser extent, on each other’s programmes of measures.
Yet, neither EU and UNECE law, nor basin treaties call for real adaptation interventions. The various climate change adaptation strategies developed by the river basin
organisations only provide general guidance as to future measures and do not address
the potential of political risks prolonged droughts are likely to pose in transboundary
relations.
Finally, European water law addresses the short term consequences of prolonged
low river flows only marginally. Undoubtedly, the basic principles of transboundary
water cooperation (equitable and reasonable utilisation and the no-harm rule) together
with the various information exchange and notification procedures create a basic
framework to tackle such critical situations. These, however, do not provide any
operative guidance to riparian states as to the immediate adaptation measures to be
taken, including adjustments in transboundary flow allocation. This shortcoming
can, in part, be explained by the fact that hitherto basin-wide extreme droughts have
been relatively rare (apart from the Iberian Peninsula), so there was no real need and
political will to address the contentious issue of national water use or transboundary
flows. In part, however, the root of the problem lies in the notoriously complacent
approach of EU law and decision-makers vis-à-vis the question of transboundary
water allocation (see Sect. 10.1.4). This regulatory lacuna and political timidity may
in the future prove a critical hydropolitical risk, if droughts and scarcity continue to
intensify in a transboundary context as projected.