The EU Water Framework Directive: A multi-dimensional analysis of implementation and domestic impact

Liefferink, Duncan; Wiering, Mark; Uitenboogaart, Y.J.

doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2010.12.006

Cited by 131 publications

(107 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

104

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This is the option chosen in many European countries to implement the EU Water Framework Directive (e.g. Junier and Mostert 2011, Liefferink et al 2011, Moss 2012, Hovik and Hanssen 2016. There are, however, no blueprints for polycentric governance.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

River basin management and community: the Great Ouse Basin, 1850–present

Mostert

2017

International Journal of River Basin Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

River basins are difficult units to manage. Society is generally not organized on the basis of river basins, yet river basins are important units for society and vice versa. This paper discusses the development and effectiveness of river basin management, using the Great Ouse Basin in the east of England as an example. Because of conflicting interests between upstream and downstream areas in this basin, it took some 70 years, from 1850 to 1920, to establish the first basin-wide management body, and because of these interests this body was initially not very effective. Over the years management was scaled up until in 1989 a national rivers authority was established. A fundamental issue was the lack of a sense of community at the basin scale. This could have mitigated the conflicts of interests and facilitated better cooperation. The paper recommends more research on the role of community in river basin management and suggests to extend the notions of 'institutional' and 'socio-ecological fit' to include 'community fit'. ARTICLE HISTORY

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

River basin management and community: the Great Ouse Basin, 1850–present

Mostert

2017

International Journal of River Basin Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Bearing in mind the observations of Liefferink et al (2011) that compliance may change during the various phases of policy transposition and implementation, we first analysed and mapped the compliance in the transposition phase, followed by the various steps in the implementation of article 6 obligations.…”

Section: Analytical Framework Data and Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Inadequate implementation has been ascribed to various causes, including in the literature on institutional aspects. Some of the more persistent explanations provided here are a lack of fit between European and domestic institutional frameworks (Knill and Lenschow 1998), domestic opposition (Mastenbroek 2005;Treib 2003), and different domestic approaches to compliance and Europeanisation (Falkner et al 2007;Liefferink et al 2011). …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 91%

“…Rather, it observes at an aggregate level that transposition follows different patterns in member states. A third comment to the misfit approach derives from studies arguing for a supposed shift in policy style represented by 'a new generation' environmental directives (Beunen et al 2009;Liefferink et al 2011), characterised by long-term and substantial goals and more process-oriented obligations, with choice of approaches and instruments left to national discretion. In their study of the implementation of the Water Framework Directive (WFD), Liefferink et al (2011)found that the misfit approach was less adequate for this policy style due to the considerable room for nationally defined pathways to the goals.…”

Section: 1 Implementation Insightsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A third comment to the misfit approach derives from studies arguing for a supposed shift in policy style represented by 'a new generation' environmental directives (Beunen et al 2009;Liefferink et al 2011), characterised by long-term and substantial goals and more process-oriented obligations, with choice of approaches and instruments left to national discretion. In their study of the implementation of the Water Framework Directive (WFD), Liefferink et al (2011)found that the misfit approach was less adequate for this policy style due to the considerable room for nationally defined pathways to the goals. The Habitats Directive represents an earlier period of EU policy, and in some ways it represents an in-between type of policy, prescribing a set of obligations related to general instruments and corresponding deadlines, while reaching its ultimate objective of reaching and maintaining a 'favourable conservation status' for habitats and species of European interest, leaves considerable domestic discretion in instruments and measures applied within the general framework.…”

Section: 1 Implementation Insightsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations