Europe - UNEP

CHAPTER 6. CONCLUSION
Alistair Rieu-Clarke
The introduction noted that institutional capacity, be it water management bodies, treaties, or
generally positive international relations, is possibly more important than the physical
characteristics of river basins in minimising hydropolitical vulnerability and strengthening
resilience. In addition, it was noted that the likelihood of conflict rises as the rate of change
within a basin exceeds the institutional capacity to absorb that change, thus emphasising two
key factors in hydropolitical vulnerability and resilience: rate of change and institutional capacity. The
key question addressed in this paper is whether or not the institutional capacity for the management of
Europe’s transboundary waters is sufficient to absorb likely changes and challenges.
An answer to the above question firstly requires an analysis of the likely changes and challenges
to Europe’s transboundary basins. Chapter two conducted such a study, and highlighted Europe’s
heavy reliance on transboundary waters for its socioeconomic needs. Increased demands for water and
inefficient practices throughout Europe have led to various water-related problems that have the
potential to lead to water conflicts between countries. Common problems include over-extraction,
especially of groundwater, pollution, soil erosion, landscape changes, and the loss of natural habitats.
Moreover, potential threats of climate change and changes in land-use practices have increased the
risk of harm both from floods and droughts. The fact that the majority of basins within Europe are
transboundary means that many of these common water-related problems are not limited to national
boundaries. For instance, the use of fertilisers for agricultural needs upstream may have a detrimental
impact on drinking water supplies within a downstream country. Similarly, the draining of wetlands in
one basin country may lead to an increase in the likelihood and severity of floods in another basin
country. Regional responses are therefore required.
The strong reliance on transboundary waters has inevitably led to tensions between European
basin countries. Chapter three highlighted a variety of conflicts that have arisen over transboundary
waters in Europe. Most parts of Europe have experienced such conflicts, which have largely been a
result of contentious unilateral actions by one transboundary basin country. Examples include Spain’s
objection to France’s proposed development of the Ebro basin in the early twentieth century, or
Greece’s recent opposition to Macedonian plans to utilise part of the Varda basin for agricultural
purposes. Chapter three also illustrated the fact that both qualitative and quantitative characteristics are
evident in transboundary disputes in Europe. For example, while Portugal claimed that Spain’s 1993
National Water Plan would lead to at least a 13% reduction in the flow of transboundary waters, in the
Daugava basin, pollution of the Daugava from large production facilities and intensive agriculture in
Belarus and Lithuania has impacted Latvia’s water supply. In addition, chapter three noted that
international agreements relating to European transboundary waters date back over two centuries.
One aspect of cooperation that makes Europe unique is the significant role played by regional
agreements in the continuous evolution of basin-wide legal and institutional mechanisms for dispute
avoidance. Both the UNECE and the EU have made a significant contribution to strengthening
institutional capacity for transboundary water resource management at the basin level, most notably
Chapter 6. Conclusion — 81