The Water Framework Directive: A New Directive for a Changing Social, Political and Economic European Framework

Abstract:In 2014, a radical shift took place in Danish water planning. Following years of a top-down water planning approach, 23 regional water councils were established to co-create and provide input to Danish authorities on the development of River Basin Management Plans (RBMP). The water councils advised local authorities on the application of measures to improve the physical conditions in Danish streams within a given economic frame. The paper shows the difference the use of water councils (public participation) made by comparing the final water council proposal included in the 2015 RBMP to the RBMPs proposed by the central government (Nature Agency) in 2014. The study concludes that the measures proposed by the water councils will generally deliver better results than the proposed Nature Agency plans, which do not include the same level of participation. Specifically, the water councils with stakeholder involvement proposed a much longer network of streams (3800 km), yielding a better ecological outcome than the shorter stream network (1615 km) proposed by the Nature Agency for the same budget. Having a structured and fixed institutional frame around public participation (top-down meeting bottom-up) can produce cost-effective results, but the results show that cost-effectiveness was not the only deciding factor, and that local circumstances like the practicalities of implementing the measures were also considered when developing the Programmes of Measures. The findings suggest that the use of water councils in water planning has significant advantages, including the fact that the knowledge of local conditions helps to identify efficient solutions at lower costs, which can be useful for administrators, policy-makers, and other stakeholders implementing the Water Framework Directive in years to come.

Section: Public Participation and The Water Framework Directivementioning

confidence: 99%

Stakeholder Engagement and Knowledge Co-Creation in Water Planning: Can Public Participation Increase Cost-Effectiveness?

Graversgaard

Jacobsen

Kjeldsen

et al. 2017

“…It replaced older pieces of European water legislation, such as the Directives 76/160/EEC [9] (quality of bathing water), 76/464/EEC [10] (water pollution by discharges of certain dangerous substances), 80/68/EEC [11] (groundwater protection against dangerous substances), 91/676/EEC [12] (nitrates directive) and 91/271/EEC [13] (urban waste water treatment). At the time, it reflected the changing socio-political and economic context of the 1990s: (1) the increasing internationalization and complexity of water resource management; (2) the rising number of actors and institutions involved; (3) the newly vested economic interests in water supply; and (4) the growing concern and sensitivity towards environmental protection [14]. The Directive promotes an integrated and holistic water management approach, targeting all water bodies and pursuing a sustainable use of water resources, both from a quantitative and a qualitative perspective.…”

Section: The Water Framework Directive and The Case Of Multifaceted Imentioning

confidence: 99%

Action Research’s Potential to Foster Institutional Change for Urban Water Management

Zikos

Thiel

2013

Abstract:The paper discusses the potential of action research to meet the challenges entailed in institutional design for urban water management. Our overall aim is to briefly present action research and discuss its methodological merits with regard to the challenges posed by the different conceptual bases for extrapolating the effects of institutional design on institutional change. Thus, our aim is to explore how Action Research meets the challenge of scoping the field in an open fashion for determining the appropriate mechanisms of institutional change and supporting the emerging of new water institutions. To accomplish this aim, we select the Water Framework Directive (WFD) as an illustrative driving force requiring changes in water management practices and implying the need for the emergence of new institutions. We employ a case of urban water management in the Volos Metropolitan Area, part of the Thessaly region in Greece, where a Pilot River Basin Plan was implemented. By applying action research and being involved in a long process of interaction between stakeholders, we examine the emergence of new institutions dealing with urban water management under the general principles of the major driving force for change: the WFD.

“…The program of measures was to be iteratively evaluated in updates every six years, building on the river basin management plans, first submitted in 2009 and to be improved in subsequent cycles. The WFD also added ecological values to the concept of IWRM, until then neglected in the Spanish approach, and required a public participation process, involving a range of sectors, NGOs and the public [48].…”

Section: Flood Management and Iwrm In Spain: Integrating The Europeanmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The WFD represented a radical reform of water legislation in the EU [48]. Under the WFD all member states had to constitute competent authorities at the river basin scale to carry out river basin assessments, to identify objectives, and define programs of measures, such that all river basins should achieve good quality status by 2015.…”

Section: Flood Management and Iwrm In Spain: Integrating The Europeanmentioning

confidence: 99%

Governing for Integrated Water and Flood Risk Management: Comparing Top-Down and Bottom-Up Approaches in Spain and California

Serra‐Llobet

Conrad

Schaefer

2016

Flood risk management in the context of Integrated Water Resource Management (IWRM) is becoming widely accepted as an approach to improving resilience in light of increasing flood risks due to climate change and other factors. This paper contributes to a better understanding of the governance arrangements needed for effectively implement integrated approaches to managing flood risk. We compare how IWRM and flood risk management have been operationalized within "top-down" and "bottom-up" governance arrangements in the European Union and the United States. We focus in particular on two case study regions, the Catalan coastal region in Spain and the San Francisco Bay Area in California, which have strong similarities in economy, climate, and environmental values, but different institutional settings. Our findings contribute empirical evidence of the need for a balance between "top-down" and "bottom-up" approaches. While the San Francisco Bay Area's strongly collaborative and participatory approach has generated new connections among flood managers and other stakeholders, the lack of a central entity with the capacity and mandate for on-going coordination and region-wide risk assessments appears to constrain its ability to support integrated and adaptive management. The European Union's top-down approach and the presence of a central authority at the river basin scale have led to a consolidated regional plan in Catalonia encompassing all phases of flood risk management, but the degree of engagement and opportunities for knowledge-sharing among participants may be more limited.