11.4 Transfer of Information and Feedback
175
a pilot phase for the reporting exercise, no systemic conclusions can yet be drawn
about the efficiency of the vertical flow of information. Importantly, however, as the
reporting template covers a number of key governance questions, this will surely
expand the knowledge base available to the Convention bodies in the review of the
existing arrangement.
Even more robust are the reporting obligations imposed on EU member states
vis-à-vis the European Commission. These reporting obligations are related to the
implementation of the Water Framework Directive as well as other water legislation.
Additional EU environmental legislation also call for reporting to the Commission
on various water-related subjects. As shown above, member states can, exceptionally
also report to the Commission on a voluntary basis issues that cannot be dealt by
them individually (see Sect. 10.5.3). Importantly, the flow of information between the
Commission and member state authorities is neither imbalanced nor unidirectional.
Member states can also grossly benefit from the rich databases the Commission
makes available to them. Thus, the vast array of raw information and analyses provided by the Commission, the European Environment Agency, Commission’s Joint
Research Centre and Eurostat on water are fed into the EU’s open access water
database (Water Information System for Europe, WISE)
10 that creates an informational common ground for member states to plan and implement water policies at
national and basin level. Moreover, through the various implementing committees
of the WFD and the regular gatherings of the water directors EU member states
can obtain ample information about the Commission’s planned and on-going activities relative to transboundary water management. The quality of the vertical flow
of information within the EU should therefore not create any obstacle to flexible
adaptation.
11.5 Authority and Flexibility in Decision-Making
and Problem-Solving
The transfer of information and coordination among the various actors of transboundary water governance is a necessary, but not a sufficient condition for adapting to
changing hydrological and political conditions. If the various actors have no authority to respond to the governance gaps identified, these are likely to grow into critical
vulnerabilities threatening the continued functioning of the system as a whole. The
authority to respond to emerging challenges is largely perceived as an institutional
question defined by formal rules. However, it is also strongly influenced by informal
regimes and cultural-cognitive factors (Pahl-Wostl 2009). While these rather fluid
categories are hardly amenable to precise measurement, their qualitative analysis can
nonetheless also help identify important constraints that limit the overall adaptive
capacity of the system.
10 https://water.europa.eu/freshwater (accessed 12 February 2019).
175
a pilot phase for the reporting exercise, no systemic conclusions can yet be drawn
about the efficiency of the vertical flow of information. Importantly, however, as the
reporting template covers a number of key governance questions, this will surely
expand the knowledge base available to the Convention bodies in the review of the
existing arrangement.
Even more robust are the reporting obligations imposed on EU member states
vis-à-vis the European Commission. These reporting obligations are related to the
implementation of the Water Framework Directive as well as other water legislation.
Additional EU environmental legislation also call for reporting to the Commission
on various water-related subjects. As shown above, member states can, exceptionally
also report to the Commission on a voluntary basis issues that cannot be dealt by
them individually (see Sect. 10.5.3). Importantly, the flow of information between the
Commission and member state authorities is neither imbalanced nor unidirectional.
Member states can also grossly benefit from the rich databases the Commission
makes available to them. Thus, the vast array of raw information and analyses provided by the Commission, the European Environment Agency, Commission’s Joint
Research Centre and Eurostat on water are fed into the EU’s open access water
database (Water Information System for Europe, WISE)
10 that creates an informational common ground for member states to plan and implement water policies at
national and basin level. Moreover, through the various implementing committees
of the WFD and the regular gatherings of the water directors EU member states
can obtain ample information about the Commission’s planned and on-going activities relative to transboundary water management. The quality of the vertical flow
of information within the EU should therefore not create any obstacle to flexible
adaptation.
11.5 Authority and Flexibility in Decision-Making
and Problem-Solving
The transfer of information and coordination among the various actors of transboundary water governance is a necessary, but not a sufficient condition for adapting to
changing hydrological and political conditions. If the various actors have no authority to respond to the governance gaps identified, these are likely to grow into critical
vulnerabilities threatening the continued functioning of the system as a whole. The
authority to respond to emerging challenges is largely perceived as an institutional
question defined by formal rules. However, it is also strongly influenced by informal
regimes and cultural-cognitive factors (Pahl-Wostl 2009). While these rather fluid
categories are hardly amenable to precise measurement, their qualitative analysis can
nonetheless also help identify important constraints that limit the overall adaptive
capacity of the system.
10 https://water.europa.eu/freshwater (accessed 12 February 2019).