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

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