The "WFD-effect" on upstream-downstream relations in international river basins ? insights from the Rhine and the Elbe basins

International audienceThe upstream-downstream relationship in international river basins is a traditional challenge in water management. Water use in upstream countries often has a negative impact on water use in downstream countries. This is most evident in the classical example of industrial pollution in upstream countries hindering drinking water production downstream. The European Water Framework Directive (WFD) gives new impetus to the river basin approach and to international co-operation in European catchments. It aims at transforming a mainly water quality oriented management into a more integrated approach of ecosystem management. After discussing the traditional upstream-downstream relationship, this article shows that the WFD has a balancing effect on upstream-downstream problems and that it enhances river basin solidarity in international basins. While it lifts the downstream countries to the same level as the upstream countries, it also leads to new duties for the downstream states. Following the ecosystem approach, measures taken by downstream countries become increasingly more important. For example, downstream countries need to take measures to allow for migrating fish species to reach upstream stretches of river systems. With the WFD, fish populations receive increased attention, as they are an important indicator for the ecological status. The European Commission acquires a new role of inspection and control in river basin management, which finally also leads to enhanced cooperation and solidarity among the states in a basin. In order to achieve better water quality and to mitigate upstream-downstream problems, also economic instruments can be applied and the WFD does not exclude the possibility of making use of financial compensations, if at the same time the polluter pays principle is taken into account. The results presented in this article originate from a broader study on integrated water resources management conducted at Bonn University and refer to the Rhine and Elbe basins (Moellenkamp, 2006)

Assessing framing of uncertainties in water management practice

The importance of problem framing in relation with environmental problems has been stated in various scientific contributions. In this paper we intend to relate it to the issue of uncertainties in water management. Dealing with uncertainties in water management is an important issue and will increase to be so in light of global changes, in particular climate change. To know how uncertainties are framed in water management practice then is important in order to evaluate strategies for dealing with these uncertainties. With the aim of identifying what are important parameters for the framing of uncertainties in water management practice, in this paper we analyze uncertainty situations described by decision-makers in water management. The analysis builds on a series of ¿Uncertainty Dialogues¿ carried out within the NeWater project with water managers in the Rhine, Elbe and Guadiana basins in 2006. During these dialogues, representatives of these river basins were asked what uncertainties they en2 N. Isendahl, A. Dewulf, M. Brugnach, G. François, S. Möllenkamp, C. Pahl-Wostl countered in their professional work life and how they confronted them. Analysing these dialogues we identified several important parameters of how uncertainties get framed. Our assumption is that making framing of uncertainty explicit will allow for better dealing with the respective uncertainty situations. In order to get a broader picture of the framing of an uncertainty we therefore suggest to add a third axis to the uncertainty matrix developed earlier by Brugnach et al. (2007) detailing on the relation of actors towards an uncertainty situation. This axis is assembled from the parameters identified in this paper

Resolución del Rector de la Universidad Carlos III de Madrid por la que se delegan determinadas competencias en el Director de la Escuela UC3M de cursos internacionales (Carlos III International School)

This article assesses the institutional prescriptions of adaptive (co-)management based on a literature review of the (water) governance literature. The adaptive (co-)management literature contains four institutional prescriptions: collaboration in a polycentric governance system, public participation, an experimental approach to resource management, and management at the bioregional scale. These prescriptions largely resonate with the theoretical and empirical insights embedded in the (water) governance literature. However, this literature also predicts various problems. In particular, attention is called to the complexities associated with participation and collaboration, the difficulty of experimenting in a real-world setting, and the politicized nature of discussion on governance at the bioregional scale. We conclude this article by outlining a common research agenda that invites the collaborative efforts of adaptive (co-)management and governance scholars

Informal Participatory Platforms for Adaptive Management. Insights into Niche-finding, Collaborative Design and Outcomes from a Participatory Process in te Rhine Basin

New regulatory water management requirements on an international level increasingly challenge the capacity of regional water managers to adapt. Stakeholder participation can contribute to dealing with these challenges because it facilitates the incorporation of various forms of knowledge and interests into policy-making and decision-making processes. Also, by providing space for informal multistakeholder platforms, management experiments can be established more easily in rigid regulatory settings, allowing for social learning to take place. Stakeholder participation is currently stipulated by several legal provisions, such as the Water Framework Directive, which plays an increasingly important role in European water management. Drawing on recent experiences in a participatory process in the German Dhuenn basin, a sub-basin of the river Rhine, we explored the interplay of informal and formal settings in a participatory process. To what degree can we allow for openness and catalyze social learning in participatory processes grounded in formal management structures? To what degree can results of informal processes have an impact on practice? We analyzed three major challenges related to this interplay: (1) the niche-finding process to establish a participatory platform; (2) the co-design process by water management practitioners, researchers and consultants; and (3) the tangible outputs and learning. We found that niches for the establishment of informal participatory platforms can occur even in a rigid and strongly structured administrative environment. Further, our case study shows that collaborative process design fosters dealing with uncertainties. We conclude that in an effective participatory process, a balance should be struck between informality and formal institutional structures to catalyze experimentation and learning and to ensure that process results have an impact on management decision

Implementing Participatory Water Management: Recent Advances in Theory, Practice, and Evaluation

Many current water planning and management problems are riddled with high levels of complexity, uncertainty, and conflict, so-called “messes” or “wicked problems.” The realization that there is a need to consider a wide variety of values, knowledge, and perspectives in a collaborative decision making process has led to a multitude of new methods and processes being proposed to aid water planning and management, which include participatory forms of modeling, planning, and decision aiding processes. However, despite extensive scientific discussions, scholars have largely been unable to provide satisfactory responses to two pivotal questions: (1) What are the benefits of using participatory approaches?; (2) How exactly should these approaches be implemented in complex social-ecological settings to realize these potential benefits? In the study of developing social-ecological system sustainability, the first two questions lead to a third one that extends beyond the one-time application of participatory approaches for water management: (3) How can participatory approaches be most appropriately used to encourage transition to more sustainable ecological, social, and political regimes in different cultural and spatial contexts? The answer to this question is equally open. This special feature on participatory water management attempts to propose responses to these three questions by outlining recent advances in theory, practice, and evaluation related to the implementation of participatory water management. The feature is largely based on an extensive range of case studies that have been implemented and analyzed by cross-disciplinary research teams in collaboration with practitioners, and in a number of cases in close cooperation with policy makers and other interested parties such as farmers, fishermen, environmentalists, and the wider public.Multi Actor SystemsTechnology, Policy and Managemen

Limits and Borders: Stages of Transboundary Water Management

Contains fulltext : 111706.pdf (publisher's version ) (Closed access)16 p