Why, What, How?—The Assessment Framework
Although the European Union boasts one of the most elaborate and extensive transboundary water governance regimes in the world, it also suffers from a series of structural deficiencies that hinder its optimal implementation. In all likelihood the unfolding new hydrological phenomena—especially the growing variability of flow volumes—will further expose the EU’s governance shortcomings. This calls for a comprehensive critical analysis of the fitness of EU transboundary governance from two aspects: is the existing regime capable of handling the emerging hydrological and political realities of shared basins and, if not so, is the same regime capable of dynamically adapting to new hydrological and the ensuing political challenges? The analysis will, on the one hand, be carried out on the basis of a number of formal institutional indicators (water quantity management, dispute settlement, etc.) and, on the other hand, through a series of qualitative indicators relating to the adaptive capacity of natural resource governance systems (coordination among different levels, transfer of information and feedback, etc.).
KeywordsResilience Adaptive capacity Fitness check
- Cosens B (2010) Transboundary river governance in the face of uncertainty: resilience theory and the Columbia River treaty. J. Land, Resour. Environ. Law 30:229–265Google Scholar
- Wolf A (2009) Hydropolitical vulnerability and resilience. In: UNEP (eds) Hydropolitical vulnerability and resilience along international waters—Europe. NairobiGoogle Scholar