Eduard Interwies Ecologic

1. Institutional Frameworks of the EU Member States for Integrated River Basin Management – Best European Practice Eduard Interwies Ecologic 12/13 May, 2006: Transboundary Dniester River Management: Institutional and Public Participation Aspects

2. Presentation structure I. Types of basin institutions II. The Water Framework Directive and its influence on institutional frameworks: the German case III. Examples of institutional frameworks in EU basins: cross-sample through variety

3. I. Types of basin institutions

4. I. Types of basin institutions Following classification schemes for basin institutions exist: 1. Differences in “model” type 2. Differences derived from state’s form of government 3. Differences according to function

5. I. Types of basin institutions 1. Differences in “model” type*: a) Hydrological model: • Organisational structure for water management based on hydrological boundaries. • Because hydrological and administrative boundaries the same, the least chance of upstream-downstream conflicts, but.... • Model may isolate water management from other relevant policy sectors, intersectoral co-ordination can be a problem. * cf. Mostert et al., 1999: River Basin Management and Planning

6. I. Types of basin institutions 1. Differences in “model” type (cont.): b) Administrative model: • Water management the responsibility of provinces, municipalities and other bodies not based on hydrological boundaries. • In many respects the opposite of hydrological model. • Water management and other sectors can be kept together, but.... • Serious risk of upstream-downstream conflicts and lack of platform to discuss these problems.

7. I. Types of basin institutions 1. Differences in “model” type (cont.): c) “Co-ordinated” model: • Somewhere between hydrological and administrative model. • Platforms to discuss problems exist: river basin commissions. • Commissions usually have co-ordinating task.

8. I. Types of basin institutions 2. Differences derived from state’s form of government: a) Federal b) Centralised The case of Germany: • Federal Structure • 16 Länder competent for water management • Only legislative framework competence of the Federal Government

9. I. Types of basin institutions 3. Differences according to function*(from lesser to greater de-gree of power in basin relative to local or administrative water agencies): a) Monitoring and co-ordinating committees: No real management and control functions; role essentially: • coordinating, • recommending policy, • compilation of data, • auditing, and • reporting. * cf. Radosevich & Olson, 1999 : Existing and Emerging Basin Arrangements in Asia

10. I. Types of basin institutions 3. Differences according to function(cont.): b) Planning and management commissions: More powerful model than coordinating council. Classi-cal example: “River Basin Commission”. Emphasis on: • developing good data systems and predictive hydrologic models, • developing policies and strategies to guide water planning and development, • systematic process of monitoring and reporting

11. I. Types of basin institutions 3. Differences according to function(cont.): c) Development and regulation authorities: • Usually multi-disciplinary, full-functioning organisation covering all aspects of natural resources planning and management. • Usually with regulatory powers. • Usually larger, more powerful and complex in comparison to other RBOs. • Classical example: “River Basin Authority” (e.g. Hydrographic Confederations of Spain).

12. II. Main aspects of the Water Framework Directive

13. II. Main aspects of the WFD Outline of the Directive Common EU-wide objectives for water: • prevent further deterioration, • protect and enhance status of aquatic ecosystems + associated wetlands, • promote sustainable water use based on long term protection of available water resources, • ensure progressive reduction of pollution of groundwater and prevent its further pollution, • contribute to mitigate effects of floods + droughts.

14. II. Main aspects of the WFD Outline of the Directive (cont.) Introduces integrated and co-ordinated approach to water management in Europe: holistic approach Planning: • Improvements in water status to be achieved through system of analysis and planning --> River Basin Management Plans (RBMPs). • RBMPs set out Programme of Measures for achievement of “Good Status” • RBMPs are subject to public consultation

15. II. Main aspects of the WFD Outline of the Directive (cont.) Practical operation: • Member States identify and assign water bodies to River Basin Districts based on hydrological catchments • MS appoint Competent Authority for each RBD to co-ordinate implementation of Directive within it. • Competent authority responsible for producing RBMP for that basin.

16. II. Main aspects of the WFD Outline of the Directive (cont.) Practical operation (continued): • Analysis to determine factors influencing water quality and quantity • Monitoring programmes • Status of water bodies in RBD determined: authorities use information in developing integrated Programme of Measures to meet Directive’s environmental objectives (in particular “good water status”).

17. II. Main aspects of the WFD Conclusions: • The WFD requires Member States to implement adjustments to their legislation/organisational structure of water resources management. • Adjustments can be made on basis of existing institutions, or through creation of new ones. • A certain degree of convergence of institutional structures is expected (cf. Greece’s new river basin authorities).

18. III. Examples of inst. frameworks in EU countries: cross-sample through variety

19. III. Examples of inst. frameworks in EU basins France: River Basin Institutions • System splits France into 6 groups of river basins, managed by basin board and Agence de l’Eau. • Agence’s main role financial: ability to make plans for water management but no power to implement them. • Commissions locales de l'Eau are boards of SAGE; make detailed plans for small local areas. River Basin Planning • SDAGE (Schéma directeur d'aménagement et de gestion des eaux) made at the level of 6 Agence de l’Eau. • SAGE (Schéma d'aménagement et de gestion des eaux) deve-loped at local level, follow river basins/sections of river basins.

20. III. Examples of inst. frameworks in EU basins Germany: River Basin Institutions • Coordination platforms responsible for water management allocation. • Co-ordination on national level between Bund and Länder in legally transposing the Directive. • Co-ordination among the Länder in designating one competent authority, setting environmental objectives for RB, designing RB management plans.

21. III. Examples of inst. frameworks in EU basins Netherlands: River Basin Institutions • Water management highly decentralised. Institutions only at regional level; decentralised state, national, provincial and local control. • Operational surface water management: Regional water boards. • Operational groundwater management: Provinces. River Basin Planning • International river basin management plans and coordinated national programmes of measures planned for all 4 river basin districts.

22. III. Examples of inst. frameworks in EU basins Spain: River Basin Institutions • Water management through River Basin Organisations (creation of RBOs began in 1926). • Today: 9 RBOs for main interregional basins; 3 intra-regional water authorities for small rivers. River Basin Planning • 1985 Water Law had already established need to prepare River Basin plans. • WFD changed objectives and contents of RBMPs. • WFD changed set procedure for work programme and co-operation with other administrations and stakeholders.

23. III. Examples of inst. frameworks in EU basins United Kingdom: River Basin Institutions • Water services privatised: 10 firms deliver water/wastewater services. • Environment Agency (previously National Rivers Authority) centres on environmental regulation. • Office of Water Services (OFWAT) responsible for price and water regulation. • Regional institutions at a local level. River Basin Planning • Catchment management plans have now been replaced by EA plans which are broader in scope.

24. III. Examples of inst. frameworks in EU basins International Commission for the Protection of the Rhine: • Century-long co-operation predates signing of convention (1963). • Charged with the drafting of plan aimed at saving the river after Sandoz chemical accident in 1986. • One year later the Rhine Action Programme (RAP) was ready for approval... • Impressive results: among others, salmon has returned to river previously known as “sewer of Europe”. • Co-ordinating Committee Rhine & WFD has been set up to co-ordinate WFD’s implementation.

25. Thank you for your attention! Eduard Interwies Ecologic, Pfalzburger Str. 43-44, D-10717 Berlin +49-30-86880-0,  +49-30-86880-100 interwies@ecologic.de, www.ecologic.de 12/13 May, 2006: Transboundary Dniester River Management: Institutional and Public Participation Aspects