174
11 Adaptive Capacity of EU Transboundary Water Governance …
11.4 Transfer of Information and Feedback
Any system of governance can only adapt to changing circumstances in its operating environment, if it receives sufficient information of these changes and such
information is fed into a complex and operational review mechanism (Cosens 2010).
11.4.1 Horizontal Flow of Information
As shown above, horizontal coordination among the multilateral actors of transboundary water governance remains fragmented, unbalanced and somewhat occasional. This condition is also reflected in the quality and extent of exchange of information between the UNECE and the European Union. The reporting requirements
under the UNECE Water Convention apply to state parties only (UNECE 2015).
Consequently, the European Union remains exempt from this obligation, although
at its own initiative it could participate in the reporting exercise. In the opposite
direction—i.e. from the UNECE towards the EU—there are no established formal
channels of information exchange.
As regards the mutual provision of information at co-riparian level all four—i.e.
UNECE, EU, basin and bilateral—layers of governance contain various obligations.
These extend from regular water quality monitoring and data exchange, through notification of planned measures all the way to early warning in emergency situations
(see Sects. 8.2 and 8.3). These obligations undoubtedly cover many or most of the
legitimate information needs of affected riparian states. Yet again, the practical experience of the Water Framework Directive suggests that these information channels
often prove insufficient or they are not used efficiently (Green et al. 2013).
11.4.2 Vertical Flow of Information
Contrary to the foregoing, the vertical flow of information between the UNECE and
state parties, on the one hand, and the European Commission and EU member states,
on the other, takes place through legally clearly defined and robust channels. As
mentioned above, since 2015 state parties of the UNECE Water Convention have been
obliged to report to the Convention Secretariat on their implementation according
to a template defined by a decision of the meeting of the parties (see Sect. 11.4.1).
(More experience is available under the Convention’s Water and Health Protocol
8
which contains specific reporting obligations under Article 6
9 ). As 2016–2017 were
8 Protocol on Water and Health to the 1992 Convention on the Protection and Use of Transboundary
Watercourses and International Lakes, London, 17 June 1999.
9 https://www.unece.org/env/water/protocol_third_reporting_cycle.html (accessed 12 February
2019).
11 Adaptive Capacity of EU Transboundary Water Governance …
11.4 Transfer of Information and Feedback
Any system of governance can only adapt to changing circumstances in its operating environment, if it receives sufficient information of these changes and such
information is fed into a complex and operational review mechanism (Cosens 2010).
11.4.1 Horizontal Flow of Information
As shown above, horizontal coordination among the multilateral actors of transboundary water governance remains fragmented, unbalanced and somewhat occasional. This condition is also reflected in the quality and extent of exchange of information between the UNECE and the European Union. The reporting requirements
under the UNECE Water Convention apply to state parties only (UNECE 2015).
Consequently, the European Union remains exempt from this obligation, although
at its own initiative it could participate in the reporting exercise. In the opposite
direction—i.e. from the UNECE towards the EU—there are no established formal
channels of information exchange.
As regards the mutual provision of information at co-riparian level all four—i.e.
UNECE, EU, basin and bilateral—layers of governance contain various obligations.
These extend from regular water quality monitoring and data exchange, through notification of planned measures all the way to early warning in emergency situations
(see Sects. 8.2 and 8.3). These obligations undoubtedly cover many or most of the
legitimate information needs of affected riparian states. Yet again, the practical experience of the Water Framework Directive suggests that these information channels
often prove insufficient or they are not used efficiently (Green et al. 2013).
11.4.2 Vertical Flow of Information
Contrary to the foregoing, the vertical flow of information between the UNECE and
state parties, on the one hand, and the European Commission and EU member states,
on the other, takes place through legally clearly defined and robust channels. As
mentioned above, since 2015 state parties of the UNECE Water Convention have been
obliged to report to the Convention Secretariat on their implementation according
to a template defined by a decision of the meeting of the parties (see Sect. 11.4.1).
(More experience is available under the Convention’s Water and Health Protocol
8
which contains specific reporting obligations under Article 6
9 ). As 2016–2017 were
8 Protocol on Water and Health to the 1992 Convention on the Protection and Use of Transboundary
Watercourses and International Lakes, London, 17 June 1999.
9 https://www.unece.org/env/water/protocol_third_reporting_cycle.html (accessed 12 February
2019).