A comparative analysis of Sava, Tisza, Dniester transborder water river basin management agreement and cooperative policies and their impact on the enhancing of mutual understanding and the well being of people involved (original) (raw)
Related papers
The European Union (EU) Water Framework Directive (WFD) requires EU member states to produce and implement river basin management plans, which are to be designed and updated via participatory processes that inform, consult with, and actively involve all interested stakeholders. The assumption of the European Commission is that stakeholder participation, and institutional adaptation and procedural innovation to facilitate it, are essential to the effectiveness of river basin planning and, ultimately, the environmental impact of the Directive. We analyzed official documents and the WFD literature to compare implementation of the Directive in EU member states in the initial WFD planning phase (2000–2009). Examining the development of participatory approaches to river basin management planning, we consider the extent of transformation in EU water governance over the period. Employing a mixed quantitative and qualitative approach, we map the implementation " trajectories " of 13 member states, and then provide a detailed examination of shifts in river basin planning and participation in four member states (Germany, Sweden, Poland and France) to illustrate the diversity of institutional approaches observed. We identify a general tendency towards increased, yet circumscribed, stakeholder participation in river basin management in the member states examined, alongside clear continuities in terms of their respective pre-WFD institutional and procedural arrangements. Overall, the WFD has driven a highly uneven shift to river basin-level planning among the member states, and instigated a range of efforts to institutionalize stakeholder involvement—often through the establishment of advisory groups to bring organized stakeholders into the planning process.
A Study on the of European Union's Water Governance: The Case of Conflict over Danube Waters
Article, 2018
There are 19 states that currently span across the area of European Union and beyond European Union depending on the water of Danube. Geared by former conflicts between riparians particularly between Hungary and Slovakia in 1992, the European Union has started to consciously design integrated management plans for the region. European Union's Water Framework Directive, also called European Union's Water Governance and European Union's Strategy for Danube River are the two basic documents and most of the laws and regulations governing the river, stems from these two documents. But, the authority of this water governance framework over the member states is under question because of continued violation of the laws on Danube by vague interpretations. Also, the EU body that prepared this governance, EU commission, have actually very little credential over ensuring member states compliances although it has been laden with so called monitoring responsibility.
Water Governance at the European Union
Journal of Contemporary Water Research & Education, 2009
I t has been recognized that the current water crisis is a crisis of water governance (Global Water Partnership 2000). Resolving water governance problems will lead to the achievement of sustainable water resources management and development. Water governance refers to the range of political, social, economic, and administrative systems that are in place to regulate the development and management of water resources and provision of water services at different levels of society (Global Water Partnership 2002). Governance issues have important implications for the management of water resources at all administrative levels-global, regional, national and local-and good governance is a prerequisite for the successful implementation of Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM), according to the Global Water Partnership (GWP) (2002). Water laws provide the framework for water governance systems and are the pillar for achieving effective governance in a given country. The main principles for effective water governance are: openness and transparency, inclusion and communication, coherence and integration, equity and ethics. At the European Union (EU) level, the Water Framework Directive 1 (WFD) provides the basic elements to contribute to effective water governance in European Union member states 2. The main objective of this article is to present the water governance system of the European Union, based primarily on the European Community Water Framework Directive. Firstly, it reviews the European Union context, in particular European Community (EC) environmental law and policy. It follows with a brief analysis of the instruments shaping the European Community water law architecture. In particular, it will emphasize the Water Framework Directive that, since its entry into force on December 22, 2000, represents the primary water policy legislation in the European Union. Finally, some conclusions will be provided.
Participation in European water policy
Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, Parts A/B/C, 2003
This paper considers the possibilities for interactive policy-making in European water management. In the new European Water Framework Directive, public information and consultation are major elements in the procedure (process) that leads to River Basin Management Plans. In general, decision making in integrated water management should not be limited to the application of models and desk studies. Important decisions need a high level of participation. In this interactive approach, visions, ideas, patterns of behaviour and solutions to perceived problems of different societal actors can be identified and incorporated into the decision-making process. For example, farmer organisations, environmental groups and associations of house owners, but also individual citizens often have various and differing ideas about measures that change the physical, chemical or biological characteristics of a river basin. Well-organised interaction has two main potential advantages: 1. The quality of the decision will be higher because specific knowledge of people involved and their different views are taken into consideration. 2. The interaction enables exchange of information which can lead to a better understanding of the ins and outs of the specific situation and in this way contribute to public support. By means of two examples of water related policy issues in Europe, i.e. economic approaches in the Water Framework Directive and Integrated Product Policy, various opportunities for pluralistic as well as corporatist types of participation in modern water management are presented and discussed.
1. Introduction. 2. International dimension. 2.1. Water as a resource: the emergence of common concerns? 2.1.1. The explicit protection of the "international water law". 2.1.2. The incidental protection of multilateral environmental agreements: strengthening the duty to cooperate thanks to the multiplicity of actors involved in water management issues. 2.2. Water as a human right: an emerging trend with a difficult enforcement? 2.2.1. A Soft explicit protection: the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights opens a window that the UN General Assembly is trying to keep accessible. 2.2.2. A harder indirect protection: regional Courts evocate complementary human rights using the "par ricochet" stratagem. 2.3. Water as an economic good: a silent emergence of social concerns? 2.3.1. The privatization of water supply services and human rights obligations. 2.3.2. Dripping water hollows out stone: looking for a new place for human rights (to water) in investment disputes resolution. 3. Regional dimension: the European Union. 3.1. Freshwater resources and democracy in the EU: introductory remarks. 3.2. The Water Framework Directive. 3.2.1. The management of river basin districts. 3.2.2. The public consultation method. 3.3. Water as a tradable good or service under EU law. 3.3.1. Water services and local communities in EU law. 3.3.1. Water services and local communities in EU law. 3.3.2. EU law and direct participatory tools: the European citizens' initiative and freshwater resources. 4. Conclusions. * Peer reviewed. The introduction and the conclusions are the outcomes of the authors' joint work. Paragraph 2 is authored by Francesca Varvello, while the section on the European dimension must be attributed to Stefano Montaldo. 1 S. T. COLERIDGE, La ballata del vecchio marinaio, Rizzoli, Milan, 1985, p. 17. federalismi.it -ISSN 1826-3534 |n. 6/2017
2017
1. Introduction. 2. International dimension. 2.1. Water as a resource: the emergence of common concerns? 2.1.1. The explicit protection of the "international water law". 2.1.2. The incidental protection of multilateral environmental agreements: strengthening the duty to cooperate thanks to the multiplicity of actors involved in water management issues. 2.2. Water as a human right: an emerging trend with a difficult enforcement? 2.2.1. A Soft explicit protection: the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights opens a window that the UN General Assembly is trying to keep accessible. 2.2.2. A harder indirect protection: regional Courts evocate complementary human rights using the "par ricochet" stratagem. 2.3. Water as an economic good: a silent emergence of social concerns? 2.3.1. The privatization of water supply services and human rights obligations. 2.3.2. Dripping water hollows out stone: looking for a new place for human rights (to water) in investment disputes resolution. 3. Regional dimension: the European Union. 3.1. Freshwater resources and democracy in the EU: introductory remarks. 3.2. The Water Framework Directive. 3.2.1. The management of river basin districts. 3.2.2. The public consultation method. 3.3. Water as a tradable good or service under EU law. 3.3.1. Water services and local communities in EU law. 3.3.1. Water services and local communities in EU law. 3.3.2. EU law and direct participatory tools: the European citizens' initiative and freshwater resources. 4. Conclusions. * Peer reviewed. The introduction and the conclusions are the outcomes of the authors' joint work. Paragraph 2 is authored by Francesca Varvello, while the section on the European dimension must be attributed to Stefano Montaldo.
Water
River basin planning under the European Water Framework Directive (2000/60/CE, WFD) poses two major challenges to EU countries: coordination among administrative units for large-scale river basin planning and the inclusion of interested parties in decision-making processes. To face both challenges, many Member States have established Coordination and Participation Boards at the River Basin District or river basin level. These boards can be defined as multi-agency and multi-actor groups that support the development of inclusive and coordinated river basin planning to comply with the WFD requirements. The aim of this paper is to understand the functioning and effectiveness of the coordination and participation boards in promoting participatory river basin planning in seven EU countries. We built a conceptual framework, based on spatial fit, coordination capacity and participatory governance theories, to assess the scale at which these boards are established as well as the type of coor...
2020
The participation of societal groups and of the broader public has been a key feature in implementing the European Water Framework Directive (WFD). Non-state actor participation in the drafting of river basin management plans was expected to help achieve the directive’s environmental goals, but the recent literature leaves us doubtful whether this has in fact been the case. This study examines a structured online survey of 118 public water managers, covering the six biggest European Union states ofFrance, Germany, Italy, Poland, Spain and the UK. We assess multiple facets of participation, for example the involved actors, the intensity of communication exchange, and participants’ influence on planning. Results show that participatory WFD implementation has included a wide range of actor groups but rarely citizens, and that there has been minimal provision for interactive communication. The value of active involvement to the reaching of environmental goals was assessed as limited and...
ERA Forum, 2009
With the introduction of the Water Framework Directive in 2001, EC water law adopted both a governance approach and a river basin approach. These new approaches are characterised by a high level of proceduralisation and by dividing the EU territory into river basins. These characteristics emphasise the need for transboundary cooperation in water management, both on the international and the regional level. Although there is a long tradition of transboundary cooperation on the international level, this level has its difficulties and limits, which urges the need for regional transboundary cooperation in river basin management. There are several instruments available to shape cooperation at the regional level, but there is still little experience in cooperation between water management authorities at that level. After describing current transitions in EC water law, we explore some instruments and their possibilities for transboundary cooperation on both levels, with a slight tendency toward the regional level. Keywords Transboundary cooperation • Transboundary river basin management • Water governance • European water law • Water Framework Directive • Directive on the management of flooding Marleen van Rijswick is professor of European and Dutch water law. Herman Kasper Gilissen is a Ph.D. candidate, researching adaptation to climate change in Dutch water management. Jasper van Kempen is a Ph.D. candidate, researching transboundary water management.