Actors’ Perceptions of Issues in the Implementation of the First Round of the Water Framework Directive: Examples from the Water Management and Forestry Sectors in Southern Sweden

Abstract

Abstract:The EU Water Framework Directive exerts a major impact on water management structure and aims, and water use activities in the member states. This paper reviews the perceptions of the early WFD implementation in a case study area in southern Sweden. The focus is on the perceptions of both water management and forestry actors, the latter as a potential diffuse source impact on water quality. This study highlights the considerable complexity of reorienting or rescaling governance given the complex existing systems particular to the area, the multi-interpretable early policies on implementation and the complexity of interpreting the regionally-focused WFD approach in the largely locally-focused Swedish system. While the first phase of implementation is now long past, conclusions on the complexity of reorienting systems remain relevant, particularly with regard to non-point sources.

Forest and water policy integration: A process and output‐oriented policy network analysis

“…If the stakes were to be more clearly defined in this region, dominant actors in the forest sector could oppose integration if it would imply costs for the sector, such as in the case of sanctions (Giessen & Krott, 2009;Hogl et al, 2016;Söderberg & Eckerberg, 2013;Sotirov et al, 2015). This is likely in timber-oriented forest management countries in case the Water Framework Directive continues to emphasize forests as potential damage (Keskitalo, 2015;Sergent et al, 2016).…”

Conceptualizing and communicating management effects on forest water quality

“…While water quality in managed Swedish forests is generally good when compared to agricultural and urban regions (Sponseller et al 2014 ), as well as to other countries in Europe, there are valid concerns about the potential consequences of forestry activities for achieving Good Ecological Status. However, one of the main obstacles when using the WFD to communicate the effects of forestry on Swedish surface waters is that its complexity overwhelms foresters, decision makers, scientists and other actors (Futter et al 2011 ; Berglund 2014 ; Keskitalo 2015 ) and that the results of status classifications can be counter-intuitive. For example, the “one out, all out” principle under which the worst result from a series of metrics (e.g.…”