11.2 Measuring Adaptive Capacity: The Indicators Used
171
– coordination among the different levels and actors;
– transfer of information and feedback;
– authority and flexibility in decision-making and problem-solving.
Evidently, none of the above indicators or characteristics can be measured quantitatively along a robust matrix of variables. Neither are they capable of defining
the boundaries of the actual learning capacities of the relevant governance regimes.
Yet, by way of identifying certain critical legal, institutional and political hurdles
the indicators chosen may provide useful information about the fundamental ability or inability of the EU system of transboundary water governance to respond to
emerging hydropolitical challenges.
11.3 Coordination Among the Different Levels and Actors
of Transboundary Water Governance
The multiplicity of governance layers can enhance resilience as it allows flexibility
to develop policy measures at the scale most appropriate for the problem (Green et al.
2013). In order, however, to achieve the optimal outcome, coordination among the
various players must be ensured both horizontally and vertically.
Obviously, the nature and intensity of coordination depends predominantly on
the legal relationship among the relevant actors. Where the legal link is weak or
missing between the various decision-makers of transboundary water governance,
the coordination also tends to be weak or non-existent. In such cases, coordination is
left to the mutual political will of the relevant actors. In contrast, coordination tends
to be robust and meaningful where the relationship among the various actors is based
on solid legal foundations.
11.3.1 Horizontal Coordination
As regards horizontal coordination the most relevant relationship is the one between
the two relevant policy-making bodies: the UNECE and the European Union. As
discussed extensively above, the interplay between the two regimes is characterised
by the clear dominance of EU water law and policy (see Sect. 8.4). Although the
European Union and its member states constitute the largest group among the parties to the UNECE Water Convention,
1 the political engagement of the European
Commission—the external representative of the EU—in the work of the Convention
bodies remains limited. According to the publicly available documents of the large
number of relevant meetings held by the UNECE (minutes, lists of participants, etc.)
1 Convention on the Protection and Use of Transboundary Watercourses and Lakes, Helsinki, 17
March 1992.
171
– coordination among the different levels and actors;
– transfer of information and feedback;
– authority and flexibility in decision-making and problem-solving.
Evidently, none of the above indicators or characteristics can be measured quantitatively along a robust matrix of variables. Neither are they capable of defining
the boundaries of the actual learning capacities of the relevant governance regimes.
Yet, by way of identifying certain critical legal, institutional and political hurdles
the indicators chosen may provide useful information about the fundamental ability or inability of the EU system of transboundary water governance to respond to
emerging hydropolitical challenges.
11.3 Coordination Among the Different Levels and Actors
of Transboundary Water Governance
The multiplicity of governance layers can enhance resilience as it allows flexibility
to develop policy measures at the scale most appropriate for the problem (Green et al.
2013). In order, however, to achieve the optimal outcome, coordination among the
various players must be ensured both horizontally and vertically.
Obviously, the nature and intensity of coordination depends predominantly on
the legal relationship among the relevant actors. Where the legal link is weak or
missing between the various decision-makers of transboundary water governance,
the coordination also tends to be weak or non-existent. In such cases, coordination is
left to the mutual political will of the relevant actors. In contrast, coordination tends
to be robust and meaningful where the relationship among the various actors is based
on solid legal foundations.
11.3.1 Horizontal Coordination
As regards horizontal coordination the most relevant relationship is the one between
the two relevant policy-making bodies: the UNECE and the European Union. As
discussed extensively above, the interplay between the two regimes is characterised
by the clear dominance of EU water law and policy (see Sect. 8.4). Although the
European Union and its member states constitute the largest group among the parties to the UNECE Water Convention,
1 the political engagement of the European
Commission—the external representative of the EU—in the work of the Convention
bodies remains limited. According to the publicly available documents of the large
number of relevant meetings held by the UNECE (minutes, lists of participants, etc.)
1 Convention on the Protection and Use of Transboundary Watercourses and Lakes, Helsinki, 17
March 1992.