Full Journal of Contemporary Water Research and Education, Issue ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

64Genskow and BornWashington, DC.Korfmacher, K. S. 2000. What’s the point of partnering?A case study of ecosystem management in the DarbyCreek Watershed. American Behavioral Scientist44(4): 548-564.Leach, W. D. 2000. Surveying diverse stakeholdergroups. Society and Natural Resources 15(7): 641-649.Leach, W. D., and N. W. Pelkey., 2001. Makingwatershed partnerships work: A review of theempirical literature. Journal of Water ResourcesPlanning and Management 127(6): 378-385.Leach, W. D., N. W. Pelkey, and P. A. Sabatier,2002. Stakeholder partnerships as collaborativepolicymaking: Evaluation criteria applied towatershed management in California and Washington.Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 21(4):645-670.Leach, W. D and P. A. Sabatier, 2005. Are trust andsocial capital the keys to success? Watershedpartnerships in California and Washington. Pages233-258 In Sabatier, P.A., W. Focht, M. Lubell, Z.Trachtenberg, A. Vedlitz, and M. Matlock (Eds.)Swimming Upstream: Collaborative Approaches toWatershed Management. MIT Press: Cambridge,Masachusetts.Lubell, M., M. S. Schneider, J. T. Scholz, and M. Mete.2002. Watershed partnerships and the emergence ofcollective action institutions. American Journal ofPolitical Science 46(1): 148-163.Lubell, M, P.A. Sabatier, A. Vedlitz, W. Focht, Z.Trachtenberg, and M. Matlock. 2005. Conclusionsand Recommendations. Pages 261-296 In Pages 233-258 In Sabatier, Paul A and others (Editors). 2005.Swimming Upstream: Collaborative Approaches toWatershed Management. MIT Press: Cambridge,Massachusetts.MacKenzie, S. H. 1996. Integrated Resources Planning:The Ecosystem Approach in the Great Lakes Basin.Island Press: Washington, D.C.Margerum, R. D. 2002. Evaluating collaborativeplanning: Implications from an empirical analysisof growth management. Journal of the AmericanPlanning Association 68(2): 179-193.Margerum, R. D. and S. M. Born. 2000. A co-ordinationdiagnostic for improved integrated environmentalmanagement. Journal of Environmental Planningand Management 43(1): 5-21.McCloskey, M. 1996. The skeptic: Collaboration hasits limits. High Country News 28(9): 7.Moore, E. A. and T. M. Koontz. 2003. A typologyof collaborative watershed groups: Citizen-based,agency-based, and mixed partnerships. Society andNatural Resources 16: 451-460.Mullin, M. W. and B. E. Allison. 1999. Stakeholderinvolvement and social capital: Keys to watershedmanagement success in Alabama. Journal of theAmerican Water Resources Association 35(3): 655-662.National Research Council. 1999. New Strategiesfor America’s Watersheds. Washington: NationalAcademy Press.Putnam, R. 2000. Bowling Alone: The Collapse andRevival of American Community. Touchstone/Simon& Shuster: New York.Sabatier, P. A., W. Focht, M. Lubell, Z. Trachtenberg,A. Vedlitz, and M. Matlock (Eds). 2005.Swimming Upstream: Collaborative Approaches toWatershed Management. MIT Press: Cambridge,Massachusetts.Selin, S. and D. Chavez. 1995. Developing acollaborative model for environmental planning andmanagement. Environmental Management 19(2):189-195.Selman, P. 2001. Social capital, sustainability andenvironmental planning. Planning Theory andPractice 2(1): 13-30.Walker, P. A. and P. T. Hurley. 2004. Collaborationderailed: The politics of “community-based”resource management in Nevada County. Societyand Natural Resources 17: 735-751.Weber, E. P. 2000. A new vanguard for the environment:Grass-roots ecosystem management as a newenvironmental movement. Society and NaturalResources 13: 237-259.Woolley J. T. and M. V. McGinnis. 1999. The politicsof watershed policy making. Policy Studies Journal27 (3): 578-594.UCOWRJOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY WATER RESEARCH & EDUCATION
65UNIVERSITIES COUNCIL ON WATER RESOURCESJOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY WATER RESEARCH & EDUCATIONISSUE 135, PAGES 65-73, DECEMBER 2006Implementing the Water Framework Directive:How to Define a “Competent Authority”Colin Green 1 and Amalia Fernández-Bilbao 21 Flood Hazard Research Centre, Middlesex University, UK; 2 Collingwood Environmental Planning, London, UKThe European Union (EU) Water FrameworkDirective (WFD) has the overall objectiveof achieving good ecological status for allwater bodies by 2015. It is up to the individualMember States to designate a “CompetentAuthority” that will be responsible for preparingand implementing River Basin Management Plansfor each River Basin District, that is, the new unitof management of water resources introduced bythe directive.In addition to environmental standards, theWater Framework Directive requires publicparticipation and cost recovery from primarywater uses, including environmental costs, aspart of the River Basin process. The requirementsfor public participation in the Water FrameworkDirective are not as strong as those contained inthe Aarhus Convention (United Nations EconomicCommission for Europe 1998) which requirespublic participation in environmental matters tobe guaranteed. Active involvement is only to be“encouraged” according to Article 14 of the WaterFramework Directive (European Commission2000).If stakeholder engagement is to be meaningful,it has to include defining priorities. This is inconflict with both economic analysis, whichclaims to be able to determine not only appropriatepriorities but also the optimal outcome, and alsowith the fixed standards defined by the directive.Economic analysis claims to be able to determinewhat the optimum water quality standards are andthis also conflicts with the fixed standards in theDirective (Green 2003). The Water FrameworkDirective consequently embodies a series ofinternal contradictions that had already becomeapparent during the development phase of the text(Kaika 2003).In an attempt to solve these contradictions,the final text of the directive introduces scope forexceptions and derogations. Member States areallowed to take into account the local geographicaland climatic conditions as well as economic,social, and environmental impacts of full pricingpolicies (European Commission 2000). There isalso the option of not applying full cost recoveryto a specific water use (Lanz and Scheuer 2001)and under Article 4.4, the deadlines to achievethe environmental objectives can be extendedto a maximum of two updates of the river basinmanagement plan, that is 12 years, as the plansmust be updated every 6 years. The directivegives a list of reasons such as technical feasibility,disproportionate costs, and natural conditions.Hence, the key principles to improve the state ofEurope’s waters are also the source of importantcontradictions that may cause the implementationof the Water Framework Directive to become anendless process of obtaining derogations andexceptions, which may result in the relaxation ofthe targets defined in the directive.Successful implementation of the WaterFramework Directive could be measured ultimatelyin terms of achieving the environmental objectivesand avoiding delays and relaxation of thosetargets. We argue that in order to be successful,the institution chosen to carry out the RiverBasin Planning (RBP) process needs to be able toinfluence other key stakeholders. The competentauthority will also have to provide a forum inwhich to involve all the stakeholders relevant toriver basin planning.JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY WATER RESEARCH & EDUCATIONUCOWR
Page 3:
Journal of ContemporaryWater Resear
Page 6 and 7:
2Bruce Hooperinstitutional, and tem
Page 11 and 12:
IWRM: Governance, Best Practice, an
Page 13 and 14:
IWRM: Defi nitions and Conceptual M
Page 15 and 16:
IWRM: Defi nitions and Conceptual M
Page 17 and 18: IWRM: Defi nitions and Conceptual M
Page 19: IWRM: Defi nitions and Conceptual M
Page 22 and 23: 18Cardwell. Cole, Cartwright, and M
Page 24 and 25: 20Mostert26 water boards responsibl
Page 26 and 27: 22MostertTable 1. Third National Wa
Page 28 and 29: 24MostertImplementationThe ambitiou
Page 30 and 31: 26MostertBiswas, A. K. 2004b. Respo
Page 32 and 33: 28UNIVERSITIES COUNCIL ON WATER RES
Page 34 and 35: 30Ashton, Turton, and Rouxresource
Page 36 and 37: 32Ashton, Turton, and Rouxassumptio
Page 38 and 39: 34Ashton, Turton, and RouxEffective
Page 42 and 43: 38Hussey and Doversin water policy
Page 44 and 45: 40Hussey and Dovers1994 Council of
Page 46 and 47: 42Hussey and Doversestablished Thes
Page 48 and 49: 44Hussey and DoversTable 1. Typolog
Page 50 and 51: 46Hussey and Doversassessment appro
Page 52 and 53: 48Hussey and Doverspolicy goals.Bey
Page 54 and 55: 50Hussey and DoversFrawley, K. 1994
Page 56 and 57: 52Mitchelloften took three to four
Page 58 and 59: 54Mitchelltree preservation plans;
Page 62 and 63: 58Genskow and Borna series of chall
Page 64 and 65: 60Genskow and BornTable 1. Watershe
Page 66 and 67: 62Genskow and Bornthe first Dungene
Page 70 and 71: 66Green and Fernández-BilbaoWithin
Page 72 and 73: 68Green and Fernández-Bilbaosubjec
Page 74 and 75: 70Green and Fernández-Bilbaoinflue
Page 76 and 77: 72Green and Fernández-BilbaoBerbel
Page 80 and 81: 76BallweberEstablish AdvisoryCommit
Page 82 and 83: 78Ballweberattributes in others (Ch
Page 86 and 87: 82Barreiraand ground water. To this
Page 88 and 89: 84Barreirawith other states for int
Page 92 and 93: 88Davis and ThrelfallResource Manag
Page 94 and 95: 90Davis and ThrelfallTable 2. Thirt
Page 96 and 97: 92Davis and Threlfallby regional an
Page 98 and 99: 94Davis and Threlfallenforcement, a
Page 100 and 101: 96Davis and Threlfallhusbandry prac
Page 102 and 103: 98Davis and ThrelfallNew Zealand: T
Page 104 and 105: 100UNIVERSITIES COUNCIL ON WATER RE
Page 106 and 107: 102Lamoree and van SteenbergenIt is
Page 108 and 109: 104Lamoree and van Steenbergenand n
Page 110 and 111: 106Lamoree and van Steenbergeninter
Page 112 and 113: 108BourgetWorks Planner Capability
Page 114 and 115: 110Bourgetwith over 600 people resp
Page 116 and 117: 112Bourgetgovernment’s intrusion
Page 118 and 119:
114Bourget4.management, drought man
Page 120 and 121:
116McKayFigure 1. The four paradigm
Page 122 and 123:
118McKay4. Paradigm 4 (which commen
Page 124 and 125:
120McKaythree main functions:1. ass
Page 126 and 127:
122McKayState Implementation of the
Page 128 and 129:
124McKayTable 2. Corporate governan
Page 130 and 131:
126McKayFigure 4. Qu. 26 - The ESD
Page 132 and 133:
128McKayFigure 7. Qu.93- This organ
Page 134 and 135:
130McKayBrundtland Report. 1987. Ou
Page 136 and 137:
132UCOWR BOARD OF DIRECTORS/COMMITT
Page 138 and 139:
134BENEFITS OF UCOWR MEMBERSHIPThe
Page 140 and 141:
136Past Issues of the Journal of Co
Page 142 and 143:
138Academic Organizations Membershi
Page 144 and 145:
140Individual Membership Applicatio
Page 146 and 147:
Universities Council on Water Resou
Page 148:
Integrated Water Resources Manageme
show all

Full Journal of Contemporary Water Research and Education, Issue ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?