https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01774966/document

Non-perennial Mediterranean rivers in Europe: Status, pressures, and challenges for research and management

The Water Framework Directive (WFD) is arguably the most ambitious piece of European Union (EU) legislation in the field of water. The directive defines a general framework for integrated river basin management in Europe with a view to achieving “good water status” by 2015. Institutional novelties include, among others, water management at hydrological scales, the involvement of nonstate actors in water planning, and various economic principles, as well as a common strategy to support EU member states during the implementation of the directive. More than 15 years after the adoption of the WFD, and with the passing of an important milestone, 2015, we believe it is time for an interim assessment. This article provides a systematic review of existing scholarship on WFD implementation. We identify well-documented areas of research, describe largely unchartered territories, and suggest avenues for future studies. Methodologically, we relied on a meta-analysis. Based on a codebook of more than 35 items, we analyzed 89 journal articles reporting on the implementation of the directive in EU member states. Our review is organized around three major themes. The first is “who, when, and where”; we explore publication patterns, thereby looking into authors, timelines, and target journals. The second is “what”; we analyze the object of study in our source articles with a particular focus on case study countries, policy levels, the temporal stage of WFD implementation, and if the directive was not studied in its entirety, the aspect of the WFD that received scholarly attention. The third is “how,” i.e., theoretical and methodological choices made when studying the WFD.

/pdf/studying-the-implementation-of-the-water-framework-directive-3zg6xs3iw2.pdf

Studying the implementation of the Water Framework Directive in Europe: A meta-analysis of 89 journal articles

We compare the structures and adaptive capacities of water governance regimes that respond to water scarcity or drought in the South Saskatchewan River Basin (SSRB) of western Canada and the Elqui River Basin (EB) in Chile. Both regions anticipate climate change that will result in more extreme weather events including increasing droughts. The SSRB and the EB represent two large, regional, dryland water basins with significant irrigated agricultural production but with significantly different governance structures. The Canadian governance situation is characterized as decentralized multilevel governance with assigned water licenses; the Chilean is characterized as centralized governance with privatized water rights. Both countries have action at all levels in relation to water scarcity or drought. This structural comparison is based on studies carried out in each region assessing the adaptive capacity of each region to climate variability in the respective communities and applicable governance institutions through semistructured qualitative interviews. Based on this comparison, conclusions are drawn on the adaptive capacity of the respective water governance regimes based on four dimensions of adaptive governance that include: responsiveness, learning, capacity, including information, leadership, and equity. The result of the assessment allows discussion of the significant differences in terms of ability of distinct governance structures to foster adaptive capacity in the rural sector, highlights the need for a better understanding of the relationship of adaptive governance and good governance, and the need for more conceptual work on the interconnections of the dimensions of adaptive governance.

/pdf/water-governance-in-chile-and-canada-a-comparison-of-3o05yt3g4o.pdf

Water Governance in Chile and Canada: a Comparison of Adaptive Characteristics

We examine the roles and functions of non-state actor participation in implementing the EU Floods Directive of 2007 (FD). We draw on experiences with participation under the Water Framework Directive (WFD), because of important links between the two directives. Comparing the legal bases and the different functions for participation, we observe the paradoxical situation that while the WFD has fervently advocated public participation public interest has remained low, whereas the FD is less sanguine about participation despite citizens being potentially more affected by flood management issues – particularly given the current trend towards a ‘risk management’ approach under the FD. Our examination of current FD implementation in Germany reveals a considerable variety of participation approaches, as well as a general trend to ‘less’ rather than ‘more’ participation as compared with the WFD. The paper closes by discussing implications for future flood management planning and avenues for comparative research. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment

/pdf/what-role-for-public-participation-in-implementing-the-eu-22f28gve5l.pdf

What Role for Public Participation in Implementing the EU Floods Directive? A comparison with the Water Framework Directive, early evidence from Germany, and a research agenda

It is a truism that environmental management has experienced a significant change in the locus of governing, in which centralised forms of steering have been gradually replaced by more collaborative management approaches organised at the ecosystem scale. Whereas much research capital has been expended on informing their design and promoting their uptake, surprisingly little systematic comparative empirical research exists on the precise nature and extent of what is often described as a ‘paradigm shift’ in governing. We address this gap by examining how one issue often deemed to require deeper ‘collaboration’, namely, catchment management, has been addressed in three comparable federal political systems: the European Union; the USA; and Australia. On the basis of a fresh and more comparable account of the forms and modalities of collaboration, we reveal that, although collaboration has undoubtedly grown in recent decades, its depth and extent remains highly variable both across and within the three cases. ...

Is Environmental Management Really More Collaborative? A Comparative Analysis of Putative ‘Paradigm Shifts’ in Europe, Australia, and the United States

Accepting the positive results that public participation can bring in the implementation of the Water Framework Directive (WFD), this paper seeks to contribute to ongoing discussions on the rather problematic WFD implementation in southern Europe. Within this framework, we first focus on the national level and the analysis of ‘water governance’ and ‘public participation’ within the context of WFD implementation in Greece, and secondly on the examination of the participatory methods introduced locally for the preparation of the Evrotas River Basin management plan. The first section focuses on public participation as an indispensable ingredient of good water governance. The next focuses on the introduction of the WFD as an instance of governance that promotes participatory arrangements. We then present the centralized structure of the Greek state as an impediment to the introduction of public participation in water governance. The fourth section focuses on the Evrotas River Basin and describes the participatory arrangements for the preparation of the management plan. The paper concludes with the verification of the need for participatory processes to respect the context within which they are pursued and with specific alterations to the way public participation has been planned and implemented in Greece. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment.

Water framework directive implementation in Greece: Introducing participation in water governance – the Case of the Evrotas River Basin management plan

Kostas Tsakiris

Papers

Water framework directive implementation in Greece: Introducing participation in water governance – the Case of the Evrotas River Basin management plan