An integrated approach to water protection and management: the European Union model

• Author: Julie Adshead
• Position: University of Salford, Manchester, UK

Introduction

The importance of an integrated approach to all aspects of the regulation of the built and natural environments is increasingly being recognised. The environment comprises multiple media, each of which interacts with each other. The environmental media must also be viewed within the overall context of the aim of sustainable development and social, economic and political pressures. In the area of water protection and management, new approaches have recently been adopted that look at a more integrative approach. In particular, the Water Framework Directive¹ represents a revolutionary shift in the way the European Union (EU) addresses water legislation ( Le Quesne and Green, 2005 ). It has been predicted that it will dramatically change the future topography of EU water law ( Howarth and McGillivray, 2001 ) and have key significance in terms of integrated planning in the entire river basin unit ( Institute for European Environmental Policy, 1999 ). This paper considers two aspects of the directive's possibilities to act as an integrative force. First, it examines the provisions for river basin management in the directive, in the light of modern definitions of “integrated river basin management” and second, the paper aims to identify features within the directive that contribute to effective inter-instrumental integration and inter-agency integration; both of which have been identified as key elements in achieving an overall aim of internal integration, which, it is argued, is crucial for effective environmental protection ( Faure, 2000 ).

Background

The river basin concept is by no means a new one. Management of water resources within a river basin framework can be traced back thousands of years to the fluvial civilisations of the Nile and Tigris-Euphrates ( Teclaff, 1996 ). The river basin unit provides a natural division for the consideration of water use and protection and planning in catchment areas has been a feature of legislative measures over a long period of time. One of the earliest pioneering river basin enterprises, and one that provided the prototype for others worldwide, was the Tennessee Valley Authority in the USA ( Teclaff, 1996 ). This unique body took the form of a government corporation with wide-ranging powers of planning, development and operation of all kinds of projects and had, amongst its aims, the achievement of economic and social development goals ( Teclaff, 1967 ). The early ventures into river basin management featured highly autonomous corporate bodies with separate funding, responsible to central government and, although they led to a general acceptance of the river basin entity, they did not allow for the integration of stakeholders ( Burchi, 1985 ). Valley authorities of more limited scope, dealing with just water supply and pollution abatement were established subsequently throughout Europe ( Burchi, 1985 ). Characteristic of the European model is a composition of both local authority representatives and private enterprise and a two tier structure co-ordinated at national level but decentralised at regional/basin level ( United Nations, 1975 ). The river basin concept is not alien in the UK, where administrative units have long been based upon river basins and the ten regional water authorities created in 1973 were similar in nature to those in existence elsewhere in Europe.

Since the early days of regulating activities in river basin units, when management was purely for exploitation and usually single-use orientated, the notion of management of the river basin and its ambit and aims have changed significantly. As advances were made in engineering and technology and reliable data became available for stream and eco-system modelling, the management of water resources took on a more comprehensive character. An awareness of the interrelationships between ecological, socio-economic and political priorities and an increased ability to balance these competing interests brought still further elements into the management of the basin ( Wengert, 1985 ). Over a period of time, management of the river basin unit came to adopt an eco-system approach. Following the Stockholm Conference of 1972 ( United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, 1972 ) its scope was extended to include groundwater, and both the 1992 Dublin Conference on Water and the Environment ( Dublin Statement, 1992 ) and the 1992 Rio Conference ( Agenda 21, 1992 ) called for comprehensive management of resources using the river basin as a focus. This theme was echoed at the World Summit on Sustainable Development at Johannesburg in 2002 ( United Nations, 2002 ). River basin management entities generally now aim for “integrated river basin management”, although the terminology used is varied and somewhat confusing. Some commentators prefer to use the terms “comprehensive” or “holistic” management ( Barrow, 1998 ) and others draw distinctions between the different terms ( Mitchell, 1990 ).

For the purposes of assessing the plans for river basin management within the Water Framework Directive, “integrated river basin management” will be taken to include the five basic components identified by Downs et al. (1991) ; namely: water, channel, land, ecology and human activity. In addition, integrated river basin management should require consideration of all dimensions of water (surface water, groundwater, quality and quantity), the interaction between the water system and other systems (e.g. land and air) and its interaction with social and economic development ( Mitchell, 1990 ). This not only reflects an eco-systemic approach but also recognises the relationship between land use and water resources. The idea of integrated river basin management, as it has developed and expanded in scope, has become increasingly complex, with a requirement to consider and to balance a multitude of often competing factors. It has been suggested that the river basin has now gone beyond its relevance as a geographical unit for water resources development and management purposes and become a political and ideological construct ( Molle (2009) . In practical terms there are suggestions that the difficult and unwieldy task involved has led to disappointing results in effective management ( Huffman, 2008 ; Barrow, 1998 ) and that a less comprehensive approach is necessary to gain practical success ( Mitchell, 1990 ).

The Water Framework Directive

It is not the purpose of this paper to provide an exhaustive account of all the provisions for river basin management contained in the directive. The central aim of the directive is to achieve “good water quality” and the main mechanism for reaching this goal is the “river basin management plan”. In summary, the Water Framework Directive requires member states to identify river basins and assign these to river basin districts. A competent authority with responsibility for river basin districts is also to be identified. River basin management plans are then to be produced, for which some technical specifications are provided in Annex VII of the directive. The plans are to include an initial analysis of the characteristics of the river basin, a review of human activity impact on surface and groundwater and an economic analysis of water use as required by Art. 5. Special protection areas are to be identified for drinking water, habitat protection and bathing water and monitoring programmes are to be put in place to provide an overview of water status. Details of the programme of measures required in Art. 11 to achieve the environmental objectives for good water quality status are also to be included in the plan. In essence, the plans are to provide an evaluation of existing legislation, highlighting any deficiencies and thereby indicating the measures required to address these shortcomings. They also allow for an evaluation of the cost-effectiveness of improvement measures, provide information...