Chapter 12
Conclusions
This study has investigated the resilience of existing transboundary water governance
regimes in the European Union as well as their adaptive capacity in the face of
changing hydropolitical conditions. The assessment covered the regional multilateral
treaty framework, the various river basin treaty regimes as well as the EU’s proper
supranational legal and institutional system. It has came to the conclusion that while
the EU boasts one ot most extensive and elaborate system of transboundary water
governance in the world, significant hydropolitical gaps can also be indentified that,
due to the rigidity of the EU legal system, are likely persist in the long run.
The main conclusions of the assessment can be summarised as follows:
– The European Union and its member states maintain one of the most extensive and
elaborate system of transboundary water governance in the world. The regional
UNECE regime, the basin and bilateral treaties of member states as well as the EU’s
sui generis legal framework stand out as regards their comprehensive geographical
coverage, strong ecological focus or cooperation over planned projects.
– Despite such positive overall picture, however, significant structural deficiencies
have been identified that may give rise to critical vulnerabilities, should the prevailing hydrological conditions of transboundary cooperation continue to change
as projected due to increased climate variability.
– As regards the key legal and institutional indicators of hydropolitical resilience
the following gaps must be highlighted:
• the absence of water quantity management: EU water law and the European treaty framework (apart from occasional bilateral water treaties) almost
comprehensively ignore the quantitative aspects of transboundary water management. Such one-sided ecological focus could be very well justified by the
relative abundance of freshwater resources and the dominance of environmental
quality considerations at the place and time of the conception of these regimes.
This lacuna, however, means that the EU and its member states cannot rely on
a solid legal framework to address the transboundary implications of the most
important hydrological impact of climate change: increased variability of river
flows;
© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020
G. Baranyai, European Water Law and Hydropolitics, Water Governance - Concepts,
Methods, and Practice, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-22541-4_12
181
Conclusions
This study has investigated the resilience of existing transboundary water governance
regimes in the European Union as well as their adaptive capacity in the face of
changing hydropolitical conditions. The assessment covered the regional multilateral
treaty framework, the various river basin treaty regimes as well as the EU’s proper
supranational legal and institutional system. It has came to the conclusion that while
the EU boasts one ot most extensive and elaborate system of transboundary water
governance in the world, significant hydropolitical gaps can also be indentified that,
due to the rigidity of the EU legal system, are likely persist in the long run.
The main conclusions of the assessment can be summarised as follows:
– The European Union and its member states maintain one of the most extensive and
elaborate system of transboundary water governance in the world. The regional
UNECE regime, the basin and bilateral treaties of member states as well as the EU’s
sui generis legal framework stand out as regards their comprehensive geographical
coverage, strong ecological focus or cooperation over planned projects.
– Despite such positive overall picture, however, significant structural deficiencies
have been identified that may give rise to critical vulnerabilities, should the prevailing hydrological conditions of transboundary cooperation continue to change
as projected due to increased climate variability.
– As regards the key legal and institutional indicators of hydropolitical resilience
the following gaps must be highlighted:
• the absence of water quantity management: EU water law and the European treaty framework (apart from occasional bilateral water treaties) almost
comprehensively ignore the quantitative aspects of transboundary water management. Such one-sided ecological focus could be very well justified by the
relative abundance of freshwater resources and the dominance of environmental
quality considerations at the place and time of the conception of these regimes.
This lacuna, however, means that the EU and its member states cannot rely on
a solid legal framework to address the transboundary implications of the most
important hydrological impact of climate change: increased variability of river
flows;
© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020
G. Baranyai, European Water Law and Hydropolitics, Water Governance - Concepts,
Methods, and Practice, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-22541-4_12
181