Water governance diversity across Europe: Does legacy generate sticking points in implementing multi-level governance?

被引:16
作者
Rowbottom, Jenny [1 ]
Graversgaard, Morten [2 ,3 ]
Wright, Isobel [1 ]
Dudman, Karl [1 ,4 ]
Klages, Susanne [5 ]
Heidecke, Claudia [5 ]
Surdyk, Nicolas [6 ]
Gourcy, Laurence [6 ]
Leita, Ines Amorim [7 ]
Ferreira, Antonio Dinis [7 ,8 ]
Wuijts, Susanne [9 ,10 ]
Boekhold, Sandra [9 ]
Doody, Donnacha G. [11 ]
Glavan, Matjaz [12 ]
Cvejic, Rozalija [12 ]
Velthof, Gerard [13 ]
机构
[1] Univ Lincoln, Lincoln Inst Agrifood Technol, Lincoln LN6 7TS, England
[2] Aarhus Univ, Dept Agroecol, Blichers 20, DK-8830 Tjele, Denmark
[3] Aarhus Univ, Ctr Water Technol WATEC, Aarhus, Denmark
[4] Univ Oxford, Inst Sci Innovat & Soc, 64 Banbury Rd, Oxford OX2 6PN, England
[5] Johann Heinrich Thunen Inst, Coordinat Unit Climate, Bundesallee 49, D-38116 Braunschweig, Germany
[6] Bur Rech Geol & Minieres, F-45060 Orleans, France
[7] Escola Super Agr Coimbra, Polytech Inst Coimbra, Res Ctr Nat Resources Environm & Soc CERNAS, P-3045601 Coimbra, Portugal
[8] Escola Super Agr, Inst Politecn Coimbra, P-3045601 Coimbra, Portugal
[9] Natl Inst Publ Hlth & Environm RIVM, POB 1, NL-3720 BA Bilthoven, Netherlands
[10] Univ Utrecht, Utrecht Ctr Water Oceans & Sustainabil Law, Newtonlaan 231, NL-3584 BH Utrecht, Netherlands
[11] Agri Food & Biosci Inst, Belfast, North Ireland
[12] Univ Ljubljana, Biotech Fac, Dept Agron, Jamnikarjeva 101, Ljubljana 1000, Slovenia
[13] Wageningen Univ & Res, Wageningen Environm Res, POB 47, NL-6700 AA Wageningen, Netherlands
基金
欧盟地平线“2020”;
关键词
River basin approach; Governance arrangements; Water quality; Sticking points; Diffuse water pollution from agriculture; Policy implementation; Compliance; ENVIRONMENTAL-POLICY; PUBLIC-PARTICIPATION; LAND-USE; LAGGARDS; LEADERS; SPAIN; COLLABORATION; KNOWLEDGE; COUNCILS; GERMANY;
D O I
10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.115598
中图分类号
X [环境科学、安全科学];
学科分类号
08 ; 0830 ;
摘要
The Water Framework Directive (WFD) aims to protect and improve water quality across Europe through an integrative and multi-level water governance approach. The goal is to ensure that water quality in Europe meets good ecological status by 2027. Whilst the WFD has been hailed as a cornerstone for governance innovation in water management, most EU member states (MS) still struggle to achieve good ecological status of their waters. The realignment to a multi-level governance structure under the WFD is discretionary, and has generated di-versity in WFD multi-level governance implementation approaches and final governance arrangements across MS. This diversity may contribute to low goal achievement and weak compliance. This paper investigates how visual impressions of legislative structure across nine MS can illustrate and contribute to understanding the differences in multi-level implementation of WFD and associated water protection directives. We explore, in-depth, the drivers of visual differences in Portugal, Germany (Lower Saxony) and France. We hypothesise that many of the challenges of WFD implementation, and resulting governance arrangements can be explained in terms of the legacy effects of previous water governance choices. With this conceptual framework of investi-gating the history and legacy, we found the three in depth studies have had different starting points, paths, and end points in their water governance, with sticking points influencing the decision-making processes and compliance required by the WFD. Sticking points include the complexity of existing water governance structures, lobbying by different sectors, and the mandatory WFD timeline for implementation. Portugal had to resolve its focus on water infrastructure and engineering to enable a re-focus on water quality. France and Portugal experienced 'top down' governance at different points in time, slowing the shift to a multi-level governance system. Lower Saxony, representing just one of 16 federal state systems in Germany, highlighted the complex historic governance structures which cannot easily be restructured, generating a layering effect where new governance systems are fitted to old governance systems. We conclude that there is a need to implement a hybrid approach to water governance and WFD implementation including decentralisation (discretionary) to ensure collaboration and engagement of stakeholders at the local level. This hybrid governance system should run in parallel with a centralised (mandatory) governance and regulatory system to enable national environmental standards to be set and enforced. Such systems may provide the best of both worlds (bottom-up involvement of stakeholders meeting top-down goal achievements) and is worthy of further research.
引用
收藏
页数:17
相关论文
共 68 条
[1]   The Europeanization of water law by the Water Framework Directive: A second chance for water planning in Germany [J].
Albrecht, Juliane .
LAND USE POLICY, 2013, 30 (01) :381-391
[2]  
[Anonymous], 2003, [No title captured]
[3]  
[Anonymous], 2009, ENVIRON POLICY GOV, DOI DOI 10.1002/EET.509
[4]   Broad analysis of French priority catchment areas: A step toward adaption of the Water Framework Directive? [J].
Barataud, Fabienne ;
Durpoix, Amandine ;
Mignolet, Catherine .
LAND USE POLICY, 2014, 36 :427-440
[5]   The ecological outcomes of collaborative governance in large river basins: Who is in the room and does it matter? [J].
Baudoin, Lucie ;
Gittins, Joshua R. .
JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT, 2021, 281
[6]   Improving the Effectiveness of Collaborative Governance Regimes: Lessons from Watershed Partnerships [J].
Biddle, Jennifer C. .
JOURNAL OF WATER RESOURCES PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT, 2017, 143 (09)
[7]  
BMEL, 2015, LANDL LEB WAND 1952, P103
[8]   Studying the implementation of the Water Framework Directive in Europe: a meta-analysis of 89 journal articles [J].
Boeuf, Blandine ;
Fritsch, Oliver .
ECOLOGY AND SOCIETY, 2016, 21 (02)
[9]  
Börzel TA, 2000, J EUR PUBLIC POLICY, V7, P141
[10]   The marathon of the hare and the tortoise: implementing the EU Water Framework Directive [J].
Bourblanc, Magalie ;
Crabbe, Ann ;
Liefferink, Duncan ;
Wiering, Mark .
JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT, 2013, 56 (10) :1449-1467