62
6 Emerging Challenges to Transboundary Water Governance
Thus, hydropolitical vulnerability can be defined as the risk of political disputes
over shared water resources. Hydropolitical resilience, conversely, denotes the ability
of the same basin’s human-environmental system to adapt to changes. In other words:
the capacity to withstand and recover from stresses so as to continue its function to
prevent or resolve political disputes in a given shared basin (Wolf 2009).
6.4.2 Building Blocks of Hydropolitical Resilience
and Vulnerability
If we accept that institutions or “regimes” (i.e. the collection of norms, formal institutions and mechanisms) constitute the backbone of the resilience of co-riparian
relations, the question arises whether such resilience can be measured and, if so,
through which indicators.
The various hydropolitical schools use diverse assessment matrixes composed of
certain formal/normative elements that—based on empirical evidence—are supposed
to point to the presence or the lack of basin-wide political resilience.
Ken Conca from the so-called Maryland School identifies the following core
normative elements for the empirical analysis of transboundary governance regimes:
– the equitable use principle,
– the no-harm principle,
– sovereign equality and territorial integrity,
– information exchange,
– consultation with other riparian states,
– prior notification,
– environmental protection,
– peaceful resolution of disputes (Conca 2006).
The Mumbai-based Strategic Foresight Group, an international think-tank, carries
out a systematic global assessment of river basin cooperation, using the following
indicators:
– formal agreement,
– river basin commission,
– ministerial meetings,
– technical projects,
– joint monitoring of water flows,
– floods, dams and reservoirs,
– high political commitment,
– integration into economic cooperation,
– actual functioning (Strategic Foresight Group 2015).
Others also include various political aspects (political stability, transparency and
accountability, diplomatic relations), sociological factors (epistemic communities)
6 Emerging Challenges to Transboundary Water Governance
Thus, hydropolitical vulnerability can be defined as the risk of political disputes
over shared water resources. Hydropolitical resilience, conversely, denotes the ability
of the same basin’s human-environmental system to adapt to changes. In other words:
the capacity to withstand and recover from stresses so as to continue its function to
prevent or resolve political disputes in a given shared basin (Wolf 2009).
6.4.2 Building Blocks of Hydropolitical Resilience
and Vulnerability
If we accept that institutions or “regimes” (i.e. the collection of norms, formal institutions and mechanisms) constitute the backbone of the resilience of co-riparian
relations, the question arises whether such resilience can be measured and, if so,
through which indicators.
The various hydropolitical schools use diverse assessment matrixes composed of
certain formal/normative elements that—based on empirical evidence—are supposed
to point to the presence or the lack of basin-wide political resilience.
Ken Conca from the so-called Maryland School identifies the following core
normative elements for the empirical analysis of transboundary governance regimes:
– the equitable use principle,
– the no-harm principle,
– sovereign equality and territorial integrity,
– information exchange,
– consultation with other riparian states,
– prior notification,
– environmental protection,
– peaceful resolution of disputes (Conca 2006).
The Mumbai-based Strategic Foresight Group, an international think-tank, carries
out a systematic global assessment of river basin cooperation, using the following
indicators:
– formal agreement,
– river basin commission,
– ministerial meetings,
– technical projects,
– joint monitoring of water flows,
– floods, dams and reservoirs,
– high political commitment,
– integration into economic cooperation,
– actual functioning (Strategic Foresight Group 2015).
Others also include various political aspects (political stability, transparency and
accountability, diplomatic relations), sociological factors (epistemic communities)