1 Introduction
3
All the more so as the relevant forecasts by the EU’s environmental monitoring
centre, the European Environment Agency, project that the most important changes in
hydrology in Europe will be manifested through increased fluctuations in river flow, a
rise in hydrological extremes and, in many parts of the continent, loss of precipitation
and prolonged droughts (EEA 2009, 2012a, b, c). This is in sharp contrast with
the foundations of contemporary European water law such as the dominance of
water quality considerations and the (almost) complete ignorance of water quantity
management. In other words, the focus of collective action problems in shared EU
basins is gradually shifting from transboundary pollution towards cross-border water
quantity management. If, however, interstate competition for the shared, but limited
resource becomes the main challenge in the numerous European watersheds, the onesided ecological programme of today’s EU water policy is likely to prove inadequate
to prevent differences, disputes or even serious conflicts in co-riparian relations.
This study aims to investigate the nature and the magnitude of the growing misfit
between the objectives and tools of contemporary European water law and policy
and the emerging hydrological realities. In the first place, challenges to the adequacy
of the actual transboundary water governance regime may emerge as a result of the
discrepancy between the regime in place and the hydrological conditions they are
supposed to handle. However, they may also develop as a result of the inability of
the governance system to adapt to new circumstances. These represent two interconnected, yet autonomous aspects of the issue that can be expressed through the
following questions:
– is the existing governance regime fit to handle current and emerging hydrological
and political challenges in a transboundary context?
– is the existing regime capable to dynamically adapt to new hydrological and the
ensuing political challenges or its evolution is blocked by systemic legal, institutional or political obstacles?
The first question represents the static dimension of the issue. In this narrower
sense the resilience (and its antonym: vulnerability) of transboundary water governance is understood as the presence (or the lack) of risks of political dispute over
shared water systems in the European Union. This condition can be best analysed
through the various legal and institutional indicators developed by different schools
of hydropolitics. The second question relates to the dynamic aspect of resilience, i.e.
the ability of the governance system to evolve so as to perform its original functions
without major disruptions under new circumstances. This condition can be best evaluated by various indicators developed by resilience science to measure the adaptive
capacity of socio-economic systems.
Since the stability of co-riparian relations is very much determined by a number
of normative factors, therefore, the main focus of this study is the analysis of the legal
frameworks that govern the interaction of states in shared river basins within the European Union. Thus, the analyses to follow are predominantly normative in nature, i.e.
drawing conclusions from the existence (or lack) and the content of relevant legal
norms. Where the sheer content of norms does not permit to come to conclusive
findings, an assessment of the actual application of the legal rule at issue will also
3
All the more so as the relevant forecasts by the EU’s environmental monitoring
centre, the European Environment Agency, project that the most important changes in
hydrology in Europe will be manifested through increased fluctuations in river flow, a
rise in hydrological extremes and, in many parts of the continent, loss of precipitation
and prolonged droughts (EEA 2009, 2012a, b, c). This is in sharp contrast with
the foundations of contemporary European water law such as the dominance of
water quality considerations and the (almost) complete ignorance of water quantity
management. In other words, the focus of collective action problems in shared EU
basins is gradually shifting from transboundary pollution towards cross-border water
quantity management. If, however, interstate competition for the shared, but limited
resource becomes the main challenge in the numerous European watersheds, the onesided ecological programme of today’s EU water policy is likely to prove inadequate
to prevent differences, disputes or even serious conflicts in co-riparian relations.
This study aims to investigate the nature and the magnitude of the growing misfit
between the objectives and tools of contemporary European water law and policy
and the emerging hydrological realities. In the first place, challenges to the adequacy
of the actual transboundary water governance regime may emerge as a result of the
discrepancy between the regime in place and the hydrological conditions they are
supposed to handle. However, they may also develop as a result of the inability of
the governance system to adapt to new circumstances. These represent two interconnected, yet autonomous aspects of the issue that can be expressed through the
following questions:
– is the existing governance regime fit to handle current and emerging hydrological
and political challenges in a transboundary context?
– is the existing regime capable to dynamically adapt to new hydrological and the
ensuing political challenges or its evolution is blocked by systemic legal, institutional or political obstacles?
The first question represents the static dimension of the issue. In this narrower
sense the resilience (and its antonym: vulnerability) of transboundary water governance is understood as the presence (or the lack) of risks of political dispute over
shared water systems in the European Union. This condition can be best analysed
through the various legal and institutional indicators developed by different schools
of hydropolitics. The second question relates to the dynamic aspect of resilience, i.e.
the ability of the governance system to evolve so as to perform its original functions
without major disruptions under new circumstances. This condition can be best evaluated by various indicators developed by resilience science to measure the adaptive
capacity of socio-economic systems.
Since the stability of co-riparian relations is very much determined by a number
of normative factors, therefore, the main focus of this study is the analysis of the legal
frameworks that govern the interaction of states in shared river basins within the European Union. Thus, the analyses to follow are predominantly normative in nature, i.e.
drawing conclusions from the existence (or lack) and the content of relevant legal
norms. Where the sheer content of norms does not permit to come to conclusive
findings, an assessment of the actual application of the legal rule at issue will also