Assessing Fragmented Governance and Data Integration Challenges in the Meuse River Basin: A Review of Transboundary Cooperation Effectiveness

The Meuse River Basin, like many transboundary river systems, faces a growing number of challenges, exacerbated by climate change, rapid urbanization and population growth. These pressures not only strain water resources, but also increase the frequency and intensity of hydroclimatic extremes such as floods and droughts. In July 2021, floods in Belgium, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, and Germany caused more than 220 deaths and more than 46 billion euros in economic losses. Post-flood assessment reports revealed significant gaps in communication and coordination, especially across borders. The Meuse River Basin is also increasingly affected by droughts, with river discharges below 20 m3/s recorded at Eijsden (Netherlands) in 2018 and 2022. Amid these challenges, there is a heightened focus on alternative solutions to manage these risks, such as detention basins, floodplain restoration, and nature-based approaches, which could significantly affect land use and resource management. The integration of such local measures presents a valuable opportunity, but also demands careful consideration of how different countries within the basin approach land and water governance.

A major barrier to more effective flood and drought management lies in the fragmented nature of data integration and modeling infrastructure. Evaluation reports have pointed to significant communication and coordination gaps, particularly across borders. They found that disparate data sources are often not sufficiently coordinated or shared across the regions that make up the basin, making it difficult to design and implement unified policies. This lack of integration complicates decision-making, creates gaps that hinder the development of cohesive strategies that are essential for managing the basin’s shared resources, increases the likelihood that conflicting measures will be taken in different jurisdictions, undermining the overall resilience of the basin. Although the International Meuse Commission (IMC) acts as platform for exchange and coordination of river basin water management strategies and guarantor of compliance with EU directives like the Water Framework Directive, it lacks the authority and capacity to ensure efficient information exchange among riparian regions. At present, regions and countries turn to bi- or multilateral agreements and projects independently of the IMC. The Netherlands for instance deploys great diplomatic efforts Belgium in an attempt to improve information sharing with Belgium.

This paper examines the relevance and effectiveness of a river basin organization in a basin where regions tend to prefer bilateral agreements and action guided by local implementation visions. It compares the advantages and disadvantages of a governance structure based primarily on bilateral relations with the river basin approach. It reflects on the IMC framework ostensibly regulated by the Water Framework Directive and its failure to add value to effective transboundary river basin cooperation.

Key Words:

Climate change adaptation, international basin cooperation, knowledge co-production, policy integration, transboundary water governance