| contents
| introduction
| what
is river basin management? | water
21rbm research | results:
rbm in five countries | conclusions
| the
framework directive in the light of water 21 |
summary
This
paper presents the research from the Water 21 project on river
basin management (rbm) and analyses the proposal for a framework
directive on water in the light of the conclusions of this
research. Water 21 is a collaborative research project involving
teams from five European countries (France, Germany, The Netherlands,
Portugal and the United Kingdom), seeking a comprehensive
appraisal of water policies in Europe in terms of sustainability.
As part of the project, research as conducted on the different
instruments and approaches used in rbm in these five countries
and in six transboundary river basins. Support was found for
the initial theory that co-operation between the different
managers, user involvement and the use of expertise promote
effective, sustainable rbm. Another conclusion is that rbm
should always combine generic and river basin specific instruments
and approaches. The proposal for a Framework Directive Water
reflects these conclusions only partially.
introduction
River
basins are important management units. River basins are the
natural context in which freshwater occurs. They are the ultimate
source of all water used in households, agriculture and industry
and the receptor of most wastewater. Moreover, the waters
in river basins have important non-consumptive uses, such
as recreation, nature, fishing and hydropower production.
Consequently, effective river basin management (rbm) is imperative.
Rbm
is not a new topic, but recently attention has been increasing.
In Europe the most notable facts are the signing in 1992 of
the UN-ECE Convention on the Protection and Use of Transboundary
Watercourses and International Lakes (UNECE 1992); and the
proposal of the European Commission for a Council Directive
establishing a Framework for Community Action in the field
of water policy (Commission 1997). The Helsinki Convention
and the Framework Directive raise important implementation
questions, which have to be solved in the very near future.
Against
this background rbm was chosen as an important topic in the
Water 21 project. Water 21 is a collaborative research project
seeking a comprehensive appraisal of water policies in Europe
in terms of sustainability. Five universities and research
institutes from five European countries are involved in this
project: France (LATTS), Germany (Ecologic), the Netherlands
(RBA Centre, TU Delft), Portugal (IST, co-ordinator) and the
United Kingdom (WRc). The project is funded by the Environment
Research Programme managed by DG XII of the Commission of
the European Union, with additional funds provided to some
teams by national organisations.
This
paper presents the research within Water 21 project on rbm
and analyses the proposal for a Framework Directive in the
light of the conclusions reached. It will pay attention to
the following topics:
What
is river basin management?
- Water
21 research on rbm
- The
results: rbm in five countries and six international basins
- Conclusions
of the project
- The
Framework Directive in the light of the Water 21 conclusions
This
paper is based on the Water 21 report "River Basin Management
and Planning; Institutional structures, approaches and results
in five European countries and six international basins" (Mostert
ed. 1999), which contains much more details and references.
what is river basin management?
Central
in the notion rbm is of course the term river basin. A river
basin is the geographical area determined by the watershed
limits of the system of waters, including surface and underground
waters, flowing into a common terminus (cf. art. II of the
Helsinki rules). However, river basins are not just geographical
areas. What turns the area into a unit are the strong relations
between the different constituent parts and elements: land
and water, groundwater and surface water, quantity and quality,
upstream and downstream. For instance, an increase in agriculture
and use of pesticides upstream can decrease the quantity and
quality of the water available downstream. Through mechanisms
such as these "water and soils" in the river basin "come into
some sort of integration" (Lundqvist et al. 1985: 14).
It
has to be noted that river basin boundaries are sometimes
ambiguous and always permeable. Some rivers traditionally
seen as separate have a common estuary (e.g. the Rhine and
the Meuse) and could be seen as belonging to one river system.
Moreover, in "natural" flatland areas water flows are rather
erratic, and in engineered flatlands determined (and alterable)
by means of canals, sluices and pumps. Finally, aquifer boundaries
and the watershed for surface waters never coincide exactly
and sometimes are completely different. Finally, river basins
are not closed systems. They interact continuously with the
atmosphere (precipitation and evaporation, airborne pollution
etc.) and the receiving waters (seas and sometimes lakes).
In addition, the uses made of river basins often transcend
river basin boundaries. For example, hydropower produced in
one basin may benefit areas in other basins, and water for
irrigation and drinking water supply may be transferred from
one basin to another.
Whether
clearly demarcated or not, river basins have to be managed
carefully. This is quite difficult, given the very diverse
characteristics of rbm. (Box 1, next page) The Water 21 project
studied how the challenge could be met best.
- multifunctionality
River
basins perform numerous functions, such as fishing, water
supply, hydropower generation, recreation and nature.
Often these conflict. River basins may be developed to
perform the different functions better, but this is often
costly. Consequently, the different functions have to
be balanced against each other and against the costs they
entail.
- users
River
basins with many functions automatically have many types
of users with different interests. This implies that balancing
functions is not a neutral activity.
-
managers
Most
basins have many managers. Even if all water management
is in one hand, relevant aspects of other policy sectors
(land-use, agriculture etc.) are not. As each managerís
competencies and capacity are limited, they are dependent
on each other for achieving their goals and should therefore
co-operate. At the same time, there are ample possibilities
for conflict as the different managers usually represent
different (mixes of) interests. Especially in international
basins conflicts may occur, due to cultural and language
differences, the additional (international) government
level involved, differences in national goals, and the
absence of an effective international judiciary and executive
able to decide in controversial issues.
- Asymmetric
power relations
A
special characteristic of rbm, complicating it even further,
are the asymmetric power-relations caused by hydrological
factors. To overstate the issue: the downstream users
and managers are at the mercy of the upstream users and
managers. Power asymmetry is, however, never total. On
other issues the "upstreamers" may depend on the "downstreamers"
(e.g. maritime access), and the former may appeal to the
goodwill of the latter. 5. Technically complex A last
characteristic of rbm is its technically complex character.
As there are so many different interrelations in river
basins, it is difficult to foresee the effect of specific
measures. Therefore, extensive research may be necessary.
- Technically
complex
A
last characteristic of rbm is its technically complex
character. As there are so many different interrela-tions
in river basins, it is difficult to foresee the effect
of specific measures. Therefore, extensive research may
be necessary.
water
21 rbm research
eurowater,
the predecessor of Water 21
The
Water 21 research on rbm built on the research on rbm in the
Eurowater project, which was like the Water 21 project a European
research project, sponsored by the Euro-pean Commission, DG
XII, and with the same partners. The Eurowater project studied
and compared the different institutions for national rbm in
the five Eurowater/ Water 21 countries (Betlem 1998) and identified
three different institutional models:
The hydrological model (management by river basin authorities)
The administrative model (management not based on river
basins at all)
The co-ordinated model (co-ordination at the river basin
level)
As
argued elsewhere (Mostert 1998), each model has advantages
and disadvantages - the administrative model primarily disadvantages.
Moreover, the hydrological model may not be feasible in countries
with a high degree of decentralisation and in international
basins. Furthermore, it was concluded that the specific instruments
and approaches used in rbm are at least as important as the
institutional model - and easier to change.
scope
and research question
In
the Water 21 project, river basin management was selected
as one of three dimensions of water management deserving special
attention, the other two being water services pro-vision (water
supply and wastewater treatment), and subsidiarity. River
basin manage-ment was taken in a broader sense than in Eurowater.
It includes all activities, whether from the public or the
private sector, that aim at a better functioning of the water
system in river basins and the land in as far as relevant
for or depending on the water system. Thus, it includes not
only water management in a strict sense, but also large parts
of land-use planning and agricultural and industrial policy.
Moreover, the Water 21 project did not only consider national
basins, but also international basins. The main focus was
not on institutional models, but on the specific instruments
and approaches that can be used in rbm.
The
basic theory used was very simple. We assumed that rbm systems
should be judged by the results that they yield and not by
their institutional form or "theoretical beauty." We define
effective rbm as rbm that ensures that river basins fulfil
their different functions in a satisfactory way, and will
continue to do so into the foreseeable future. We furthermore
hypothesise that three factors promote such results: co-operation
between the different managers, user involvement, and the
use of expertise. Consequently, the instru-ments and approaches
used in rbm should stimulate co-operation, user involvement
and expertise.
Based
on this theory, we addressed three questions:
Which instruments and approaches for rbm are used in the
Eurowater countries and the selected international basins?
Do these instruments and approaches, promote co-operation,
user involvement and the use of expertise, given the specific
hydrological, socio-economic and institutional con-text?
Do co-operation, user involvement and the use of expertise
promote effective rbm?
The
ultimate aim was twofold: to increase insight in rbm; and
to support the choice of instruments and approaches at the
national and the EU level and in international basins.
research
methodology
The
research used the case-study approach (Yin 1986). First a
theoretical framework was developed (basically a specification
of the basic theory). Following case descriptions were prepared
in order to test and illustrate the theoretical framework.
Finally, the cases were compared carefully, conclusions were
drawn concerning the instruments to be used in rbm, and the
theoretical framework was adapted and enriched.
Cases
were conducted at two levels. The "first order" case studies
are the descriptions of rbm in the five Water 21 countries
and descriptions of the management of six selected international
river basins. The second-order case studies were individual
basins within the five countries. (Figure 1,below)
Research
teams from all countries studies were involved, co-ordinated
by the co-ordinator for the Water 21 topic rbm, the Dutch
team. The co-ordinator drafted the theo-retical framework
and terms of reference for the case studies in co-operation
with the other team. Following, each team conducted its national
case study, and some teams also an international case study.
These case studies were reviewed by the co-ordinator to safe-guard
consistency. Finally,
the co-ordinator drafted the conclusions, which were dis-cussed
with all other teams.
results:
rbm in five countries and six international basins
instruments
and approaches
The research has resulted in the first place in an overview
of rbm systems in the different countries and international
basins studied. In most countries and international basins
all instruments and approaches can be found, but their popularity
differs quite a lot (Table 1, next page). Moreover, even if
in two countries the same instrument or approach is popu-lar,
these may still be implemented quite differently. For instance,
in the Netherlands the function of planning ranges form policy
preparation, to strategy formulation and to co-ordinating
and prioritising individual activities and projects. In England
and Wales, on the other hand, emphasis is very much on the
last function of planning.
table
1: most popular instruments and approaches in river basin
management
co-operation,
user involvement and use of expertise
The
degree of co-operation, user involvement and use of expertise
too differs between the different countries and basins. In
France, the new (1992) river basin planning system has improved
the co-operation between the managers and the involvement
of the users. The bodies that exist at the basin (Agences
de l'Eau) and the subbasin level (Local Water Commissions)
include representatives from different government bodies and
user groups, albeit the latter as a minority. Moreover, the
Local Water Commissions improved the use of expertise significantly.
They produce a lot of information and their board composition
adds legitimacy to the information.
In Germany co-operation between managers is extensive,
especially in river basin commissions with a co-ordinating
task and in professional organisations. Some problems,
however, persist (e.g. the in the relation between waterway
management and water man-agement). Different user groups
can participate in the many water users associations,
which execute parts of German rbm, such as river maintenance
or sewage treatment. Ex-pertise too plays a big role.
Technical guidelines produced by technical-scientific
associa-tions and their working groups are often generally
accepted and function as technical standards.
In The Netherlands, co-operation between the managers
is usually satisfactory. The planning system, the several
steering groups and commissions, and the Dutch consensus
culture imply that there are many contacts between the
managers. Still, co-ordination problems do occur, for
instance within the provinces and between the waterboards
and municipalities. The users can participate in the waterboards
and in planning, but still some many managers like to
keep control over management and limit the role of the
us-ers. The use of expertise in Dutch rbm is extensive,
especially at the national level. The expertise available
at the smaller municipalities is often limited.
In
Portugal, in the absence of integrated planning, co-operation
between the different managers is on an ad-hoc basis.
Still, co-operation between the central and local powers
is generally effective. Conflicts that do arise derive
often from disagreements over the financing of certain
planned works. User involvement takes several forms. They
can par-ticipate in users associations, in river basin
councils for the big basins, and in the prepara-tion of
the municipal master plans. The use of expertise is still
limited, and most informa-tion available to managers is
sectoral in nature.
In
the England and Wales co-operation between water managers
is high, with many water management functions integrated
in one organisation, the Environment Agency. Co-operation
with land-use planners has traditionally been limited,
but several efforts are being made to improve co-operation.
The Environment Agency actively consults the lo-cal authorities,
NGOs and segments of the public in the so-called LEAP-process.
The use of expertise in rbm is extensive.
In
the international basin the major issue is international
co-operation.In this respect the Rhine clearly takes the
lead of all international basins studied. Countries co-operate
in the framework of the International Rhine Commission
since 1950, and since a few years also international NGOs
can participate directly in the Commission's work. Expertise
has always played a central role in the International
Rhine Commission. There is joint moni-toring, the main
emission sources have been inventoried, etc. As in the
case of the Local Water Commission, the presence of a
legitimate institution has given the reports and in-formation
produced the force of greater integrity.
In
the Meuse and Scheldt basins international co-operation
is of a more recent date and has not yet developed in
the same degree. Moreover, user involvement seems to be
more limited. Expertise again plays an important role.
In
the Iberian basins one should distinguish between two
periods with quite different issues. Until 1993, co-operation
on boundary issues and hydropower issues was effective.
Gradually, however, possible future water shortages and
water pollution became impor-tant, and in November 1998
Portugal and Spain agreed on a new convention with a broader
scope. The role of expertise in the management of the
Iberian basins is not as ex-plicit as in the case of the
other basins studied.
results
in the basin
As
stated before, rbm systems should be judged by the results
that they yield and not by their institutional form or "theoretical
beauty." Looking at the results, we can see that in each country
and international basin studied a number of problems have
been solved or are being solved and a number of problems still
await solution.
table
2: results of river basin management: reflecting as much as
possible regional differences within countries and basins
(indication only!)
The
unsolved and solved problems differ, but flooding is a problem
in all cases. Usually, there is no overall degradation of
the basins, but significant degradation does occur in the
form of overexploitation of water resources (e.g. some parts
of France), erosion (e.g. the Trancão basin in Portugal),
groundwater pollution (e.g. the Netherlands), illegal construction
of levies along the river (e.g. the Arc river in France) and
eutrophication (e.g. the Netherlands). The integration of
water management and land-use planning is usually limited.
Conflicts
between upstream and downstream parts of a basin and upstream
and down-stream countries occur, but they usually do not lead
to bad relations; "water wars" be-tween the Water 21 countries
are presently unthinkable. More important are conflicts within
areas. In all countries studied there are major unresolved
conflicts between urban development and flood protection (e.g.
developments in flood-prone areas) and between agriculture
and environmental protection (diffuse pollution, water use).
Moreover, sew-age is a problem (stormwaters everywhere, treatment
in some countries). Industrial pollu-tion has been tackled
effectively in most countries.
Ultimately,
the major conflict in all countries and international basins
studied is a so-cial and economic one. Although in the long
term sustainable rbm is cheaper than unsus-tainable rbm, in
the short term it is more expensive. In the short term priorities
have to be set between economic development now or better
circumstances - also economically - in the (far) future. The
result can only be sustainable if environmental consciousness
is high, if a long-term perspective is used, and if effects
in the whole basin are taken into account, including transboundary
effects.
Table
2 summarises the results of rbm in the different countries
and international ba-sins. For several reasons it has proven
difficult to assess the results. The amount of in-formation
on the status of the river basins differs substantially and
the information is not totally comparable. Moreover, improvements
or lack of improvement cannot automati-cally be attributed
to the management of the basin: external factors such as socio-economic
and technological developments are important too. Still, Table
gives an im-pression.
conclusions
co-operation,
user involvement and use of expertise
After
studying rbm in five countries and six international basins,
the basic theory that co-operation, user involvement and use
of expertise promotes effective (=sustainable) rbm still stands.
Some parts of the basic theory have been confirmed by one
or more of the cases studied, some parts could be developed
further, inspired by the information gath-ered form the cases,
and no part was falsified.
The
need for co-operation is recognised in most countries and
basins studied. The subbasin studied in Portugal, the Trancão
basin, offers a clear example of this need. In this basin,
effective co-operation between the agencies responsible for
land-use planning and those responsible for flood protection
has been largely lacking. This has lead to the adoption of
expensive infrastructural measures for reducing flood risks,
such as dykes, instead of non-structural measures, such as
reforestation upstream, that could also en-hance the nature
and recreation value of the basin. In the Netherlands the
need to co-operate has even resulted in the famous "consensus
culture," which tries to avoid con-flicts in order to keep
good relations (also as a means of "self-defence", to prevent
that others infringe upon your position).
The
importance of user involvement too is widely recognised. Yet,
two different forms should be distinguished: management by
the users, and involvement of users in manage-ment activities
by governmental bodies or the water industry. Examples of
the former can be found in for instance Portugal (users' associations
in agriculture), Germany (water us-ers associations), and
the Netherlands (the waterboards). Management by users makes
management, which usually also implies financing by the users,
makes management in-dependent from government and its political
allocation of funds. It provides optimal con-ditions for balancing
costs and benefits of water management activities, but since
the wa-ter users' associations usually deal with only some
aspects of rbm, co-ordination with other the other aspects
is a very important issue.
Involvement
of users in management activities by governmental bodies is
very com-mon, and in water industry very rare and limited.
Benefits are (1) all legitimate interests may be heard; (2)
more information and creative ideas become available for manage-ment;
and (3) management may become more legitimate and accepted.
Yet, to realise these benefits a number of criteria have to
be met. First, all different user groups should be represented.
From the point of view of sustainability, it is especially
important that environmental NGOs are represented. Secondly,
the different managers should take user involvement serious,
but at the same time take their own responsibility. If user
involve-ment is not taken seriously, useful information is
not used, specific interests may still be overlooked, and
legitimacy and acceptance may actually deteriorate. Yet, however
seri-ous managers take user involvement, they cannot "hide"
behind user involvement and say they just do what the public
wants. They should take their responsibility for their actions
and have to be hold accountable for their actions. To prevent
disillusion on the part of the users, the role of user involvement
and the responsibility of the managers should be made clear
at the beginning. Thirdly, environmental awareness of the
public should be at least as high as among the managers, and
public information on the issues at stake and on en-vironmental
issues generally should be good.
It is unclear what the role of user involvement should be
in international basins. One could argue that responsibilities
in international rbm could become too diffuse and rbm itself
too complex if user groups are involved directly in the work
of river basin commis-sions, which are basically just platforms
for co-operation between the basin states. An alternative
form of user involvement would be involvement through the
different basin states, at the national level. However, river
basin commissions, and particularly the secre-tariat of these
commissions, play to some extent an independent role, and
this would point to user involvement at the basin level. Moreover,
since a few years, the Interna-tional Rhine Commission actively
involves international NGOs in its work, to the satis-faction
of both the Commission and the NGOs.
The
use of expertise is beyond doubt essential for rbm. Rbm implies
balancing con-flicting functions and is therefore highly political,
but if this balancing is not based on a sound understanding
of the issues at stake, the result is unlikely to be satisfactory.
Exper-tise is used extensively in most countries and basins
studied. An important issue turns out to be the acceptability
of research for the parties concerned. The Local Water Commis-sion
on the Arc and the International Rhine Commission show that
the involvement of a legitimate, joint institution can significantly
enhance acceptability.
instruments
and approaches
Having
made plausible that co-operation, user involvement and the
use of expertise in-deed promote effective, sustainable rbm,
the question is now what instruments and ap-proaches can be
used for this purpose. Moreover, we will present additional
insights on the use of instruments and approaches that have
emerged from the case studies.
Concerning
national rbm, the first conclusion is that river basin specific
and generic instruments and approaches should be combined
- as indeed they are in the cases studied. The limitation
of most generic instruments (e.g. EU-wide emission or water
quality stan-dards) is simply that they cannot take local
circumstances into account. Consequently, if all rbm were
generic, rbm would be much too strict in many basins, or much
too lenient in other basins, or a combination of both. The
limitations of river basin specific instru-ments and approaches
are, first, that many factors impacting on river basins are
not lo-cated in the basin (cf. atmospheric pollution and EU
agricultural policy). Secondly, it is more difficult to ensure
a minimum level of environmental protection if everything
is de-cided upon with the different river basins. Thirdly,
too big differences between basins or subbasins may affect
the competitiveness of the local industry, and this may form
a drive towards lower levels of environmental protection.
And fourthly, information demands and required expertise are
usually much higher.
Secondly,
many of the cases studied (e.g. France, The Netherlands and
Portugal) show the shortcomings of regulatory instruments.
Regulatory instruments are difficult to en-force, especially
when regulating many small activities, and strict regulation
is often not politically feasible. To overcome these shortcomings,
instruments based on communica-tion and persuasion are increasingly
used, but these instruments have their limitations too. Users
will not agree voluntarily with anything that goes against
their interest, unless there are some specific positive or
negative incentives - such as the possible future regulation.
Consequently, one cannot abandon regulatory instruments totally,
and work needs to be done on improving enforcement and increasing
the necessary social and political support for this.
Thirdly,
systems of planning and river basin commissions offer good
possibilities for improving co-operation between managers
and organising public participation and exper-tise. They bring
managers together, may offer a framework for public participation,
and constitute an obvious focus for organising policy-relevant
research. What is not possible for the, many, individual operational
decisions (e.g. granting of permits) may be possible for one
or two planning processes or for one or two commissions. Apart
from this, as al-ready discussed, commissions may give legitimacy
to research results.
The
need for a commission was felt especially in the Portugal
at the subbasin level. In the Netherlands, on the other hand,
there is a profusion of commissions and planning, which sometimes
decreases transparency and consistency. In other words, there
can be too much of a good thing. Apart from that, planning
and commissions should be directed towards operational decisions
if they are to improve rbm, but these decisions should be
set within a long-term vision on the pertinent basins. Moreover,
if the plans are to be im-plemented, there should be a clear
link between the different operational plans and budg-eting
procedures.
Fourthly,
river basin authorities exist only to a very limited extent
in the countries studied. River basin authorities can potentially
deal effectively with upstream-downstream problems: by definition,
they cover the whole basin and can take binding decisions.
A weak point is that most are not competent in land-use planning,
unlike for instance municipalities or provinces. This is presently
a very salient point, since many water management problems
are at the interface with land-use planning (flood protection,
diffuse pollution, erosion, desiccation).
Concerning
international basins, the major conclusions are first, that
international co-operation usually takes a long time to develop
and that trying to hurry the development may not be a good
thing. Secondly, disasters have proven to be a strong stimulus
to fur-ther international rbm (cf. the Sandoz disaster in
1986, which resulted in the Rhine Ac-tion Plan). Another means
to further international co-operation, and this is the third
con-clusion, is to link contentious issue with issues where
the distribution of costs and bene-fits is exactly the reverse
(cf. The Meuse and Scheldt negotiations). In this way conflict-ing
interests can be overcome. Fourthly, it may be advisable to
rely not only on interna-tionally binding agreements. As shown
by the Rhine Action Plan, non-binding agree-ments can be very
effective, and moreover they take less time to reach. Fifthly,
like in national rbm, river basin commissions with a co-ordinating
task have proven to be very useful.
Finally,
The EU provides a generic framework for water management,
which applies to all basin states of the international basins
studied (except Switzerland), but not specifi-cally to any
individual river basin. The previous discussion on generic
rbm versus river basin specific rbm applies here too, including
the solution proposed: combine the generic and the river basin
specific approach.
the
framework directive in the light of Water 21
A
very pertinent question at this moment is whether the proposed
EU Framework Direc-tive Water reflects the conclusions listed
above. Any discussion of this proposed Direc-tive should start
with the remark that its scope is limited. It deals with water
quality in an integrated way, but it covers only some aspects
of water quantity (overexploitation of groundwaters, effects
of droughts and floods). This is clearly a limitation.
Secondly,
the Directive combines generic rbm with river basin specific
rbm, but with the emphasis on the generic rbm. The Directive
is based on a river basin approach, but how these basins should
be managed is determined to a large extent in the Directive,
and not in the basins themselves. The Directive prescribes
what types of analyses should be performed, how often river
basin plans should be reviewed, what the environmental ob-jectives
for the river basins are, etc. Moreover, it pays very little
attention to subbasins.
The
Directive offers some flexibility, but within rather strict
limits. This limited flexibil-ity and emphasis on a generic
approach is to some extent understandable, since the level
of environmental consciousness differs quite considerably
between the different member states. Consequently, too much
flexibility could results in a totally different implementa-tion
of the Directive. On the other hand, the European Commission
will probably have very large difficulties in controlling
the implementation of the Directive in its present (June 1998),
complex form. The Directive's approach to pollution control
is a good example of the Directive's emphasis on a generic
approach. Pollution should be controlled primarily by means
of emission controls based on the Best Available Technique
or on the relevant emission standards. However, more stringent
emissions controls should be applied if this is neces-sary
to reach a relevant quality objective or standard. The Best
Available Technique, relevant emission controls, and the quality
objective and standards are largely generic. Yet, if applied
properly, the result of the combined approach will be river
basin specific pollution control that reflects the differences
in the different basins.
Thirdly,
the main policy instruments in the Framework Directive are
regulatory. Much emphasis is put on binding programmes of
measures, emission controls etc., and very lit-tle on instruments
such as voluntary agreement. This is rather problematic, given
the main shortcoming of regulatory instruments: limited compliance.
For the Directive to be effective, much attention should go
to enforcement, within the member states (compli-ance by water
users) and at the European level (enforcement policy of and
practice in the member states). Moreover, consideration could
be given to alternative policy instrument such as voluntary
agreements, without, however, forgetting their weak points.
Fourthly,
the system of river basin planning and the identification
of competent au-thorities offer good opportunities for improving
co-operation between managers and or-ganising public participation
- at least in purely national basins. Much, however, will
de-pend on the implementation of the Directive in the different
member states. The Directive does not say who should be involved
in planning and in what phase, other than that the draft rbm
plan should be put on public display and the public should
get the opportunity to comment in writing. The member states
have to ensure "the appropriate administrative arrangements,
including the identification of the appropriate competent
authority", but the Directive does not say what these arrangements
and what this competent authority should look like and how
they should function. Yet, issues such as these will determine
whether co-operation and user involvement will actually increase
or not. The Directive may promote co-operation between water
management and agriculture at the European level (DG XI and
DG VI of the Commission). According to art. 15, member states
may report important issues for rbm that lie outside their
competence, such as EU agricultural policy, to the Commission,
and the Commission then should respond within six months.
The
Framework Directive says relatively little about the management
of international river basins and is consequently unlikely
to improve international co-operation much. Ba-sically, each
member state should manage its part of international basins
and co-operate internationally where necessary. The Directive
says little about the form of co-operation or how it should
be developed. The pertinent member states should together
delineate their international river basins and assign them
to an international river basin district. Moreover, they should
try to develop an international rbm plan; their more operational
programmes of measures should only be co-ordinated. The Directive
does not require the establishment of international river
basin commissions. However, the establishment of river basin
commissions is required by the Helsinki convention, which
was also signed by the EU. (UNECE 1992)
REFERENCES
Betlem,
I. 1998: "River basin management and planning." in: F.N. Correia
(ed.): Water Resources Management in Europe. Volume 2: Selected
Issues in Water Resources Management in Europe. Balkema: Rotterdam.
Commission
of the European Communities 1997: Proposal for a Council Directive
es-tablishing a Framework for Community Action in the field
of water policy. COM(97) 49 def.
Lundqvist,
J.; U. Lohm; M. Falkenmark 1985: "Synthesis and conclusions."
in: idem (eds.): Strategies for River Basin Management; Environmental
Integration of Land and Water in a River Basin. D. Reidel
Publishing Company: Dordrecht/ Boston/ Lan-caster.
Mostert,
E. 1998: "River Basin Management in the European Union; How
it is done and how it should be done." European Water Management.
Vol. 1, No 3, 26-35.
Mostert,
E. (ed.) 1999: River Basin Management and Planning; Institutional
structures, approaches and results in five European countries
and six international basins. RBA Series on River Basin Administration,
Research Report nr 10. RBA Centre: Delft.
UNECE
(United Nations Economic Commission for Europe) 1992: Convention
on the Protection and Use of Transboundary Watercourses and
International Lakes. Pub-lished in (a.o.) Tractatenblad van
het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden, nr. 199.
Yin,
R.K. 1986: Case Study Research. Applied Social Research Method
Series, Volume 5. 4th Impression. Sage: Beverly Hills etc.
ADDED
REFERENCES
Outline
of river basin management:
Mostert,
E. et al. 2000: "River Basin Management and Planning", in:
E. Mostert (ed.): River Basin Management; Proceedings of the
International Workshop (The Hague, 27-29 October 1999). UNESCO,
IHP-V, Technical Documents in Hydrology, nr. 31, Paris, pp.
24-55.
The
Proceedings are available free of charge from the Distribution
Centre of the Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the
Environment (order number 20066; address see above) and from
UNESCO (United Nations Bldg./ 2nd Floor, Jalam Thamrin 14,
1273/ JKT Tromolpos/ Jakarta 10012, Indonesia/ Fax : +62 21
315 0382/ E-mail : m.overmars@unesco.org). The paper is also
on the Internet http:/www.ct.tudelft.nl/rba/rba.htm.
Newer
version of the Framework Directive: Framework Directive Water
(1999) Common position (EC) No 41/1999 adopted by the Council
on 22 October 1999 with a view to the adoption of a directive
1999/…/EC of the European Parliament and Council Directive
establishing a framework for Community ac-tion in the field
of water policy. OJ C 343/01, 30.11.1999. http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/oj/index.html
|
