170
11 Adaptive Capacity of EU Transboundary Water Governance …
11.2 Measuring Adaptive Capacity: The Indicators Used
Adaptive capacity is a latent property of a governance system that is activated only
in response to a crisis or an opportunity. Such latency, coupled with the inherent
elasticity of the underlying concept, renders the measurement of adaptive capacity
an uncertain and somewhat arbitrary exercise (Lockwood et al. 2015). Yet, various
resilience indicator sets have been developed over the years to evaluate the adaptive
capacity of governance systems. The main characteristics of adaptive capacity are
usually summarised along the following features:
– open and frequent lines of communication,
– the ability to learn and store knowledge and experience,
– flexibility in decision-making and problem solving,
– responsive power structures that consider the need of all stakeholders,
– collaboration and action between both formal and informal institutions at multiple
scales (Garmestani and Benson 2013).
In the context of co-riparian relations Barbara Cosens, a multidisciplinary
researcher of water governance resilience, applies a similar but slightly expanded
indicator set:
– multiple, overlapping levels of control with one level of either control or strong
coordination at the scale of the particular social-ecological system,
– horizontal and vertical transfer of information and coordination of decisionmaking among entities and individuals with a decision-making role,
– meaningful public participation,
– local capacity building, and
– authority to respond (adapt) to changes in circumstances across a range of scenarios
(Cosens 2010).
In the context of the EU’s Water Framework Directive this set of indicators has
been expanded with two additional items: monitoring and system feed-back and
enforcement by Green et al. (2013).
While the above indicators have been applied to the assessment of the adaptive
capacity of water governance regimes extensively, they do not, however, seem fully
suitable for the evaluation of co-riparian relations, let alone to address the legal and
institutional gaps identified in the previous chapter. Nonetheless, they provide a general toolkit, whose certain elements can be adapted to the particular purposes of
this analysis as follows. Indicators relating to sub-state level actions or actors—such
as public participation or local capacity building—are mostly irrelevant in a stateto-state context and are therefore omitted. Certain other issues—e.g. the existence
of polycentric, multilevel governance structures in the EU—have been already discussed extensively in the foregoing, thus no specific indicators to that effect needs
to be employed subsequently (see Sect. 8.1.2). In view of these limitations the following set of indicators is proposed for the assessment of the adaptive capacity of
transboundary water governance within the European Union:
11 Adaptive Capacity of EU Transboundary Water Governance …
11.2 Measuring Adaptive Capacity: The Indicators Used
Adaptive capacity is a latent property of a governance system that is activated only
in response to a crisis or an opportunity. Such latency, coupled with the inherent
elasticity of the underlying concept, renders the measurement of adaptive capacity
an uncertain and somewhat arbitrary exercise (Lockwood et al. 2015). Yet, various
resilience indicator sets have been developed over the years to evaluate the adaptive
capacity of governance systems. The main characteristics of adaptive capacity are
usually summarised along the following features:
– open and frequent lines of communication,
– the ability to learn and store knowledge and experience,
– flexibility in decision-making and problem solving,
– responsive power structures that consider the need of all stakeholders,
– collaboration and action between both formal and informal institutions at multiple
scales (Garmestani and Benson 2013).
In the context of co-riparian relations Barbara Cosens, a multidisciplinary
researcher of water governance resilience, applies a similar but slightly expanded
indicator set:
– multiple, overlapping levels of control with one level of either control or strong
coordination at the scale of the particular social-ecological system,
– horizontal and vertical transfer of information and coordination of decisionmaking among entities and individuals with a decision-making role,
– meaningful public participation,
– local capacity building, and
– authority to respond (adapt) to changes in circumstances across a range of scenarios
(Cosens 2010).
In the context of the EU’s Water Framework Directive this set of indicators has
been expanded with two additional items: monitoring and system feed-back and
enforcement by Green et al. (2013).
While the above indicators have been applied to the assessment of the adaptive
capacity of water governance regimes extensively, they do not, however, seem fully
suitable for the evaluation of co-riparian relations, let alone to address the legal and
institutional gaps identified in the previous chapter. Nonetheless, they provide a general toolkit, whose certain elements can be adapted to the particular purposes of
this analysis as follows. Indicators relating to sub-state level actions or actors—such
as public participation or local capacity building—are mostly irrelevant in a stateto-state context and are therefore omitted. Certain other issues—e.g. the existence
of polycentric, multilevel governance structures in the EU—have been already discussed extensively in the foregoing, thus no specific indicators to that effect needs
to be employed subsequently (see Sect. 8.1.2). In view of these limitations the following set of indicators is proposed for the assessment of the adaptive capacity of
transboundary water governance within the European Union: