Water Framework Directive

1
Water management planning and public participation

• Water Framework Directive
• Public participation among the requirements of
  the WFD relating to the river basin management
  planning
• What is th epublic participation?
• Advantages and diadvantages
• An international project on the PP in the RBMP
• A Hungarian project on the PP in the rural
  development

2
New Challenge for the European Countries The
Water Framework Directive

• Agreed on the 23 October 2000
• Assess the ecological status of water bodies
  ensure that the appropriate environmental
  objectives are set
• Overall objective good ecological status by Dec
  2015
• Achieved by a River Basin Management Plan

3
Implementation of EU WFD in Europe

• Started in June 2001
• Common methodology of all surface waters
• Four phases for implementation with deadlines
• Phase 1 Deadline. Dec 2003
• Phase 2 Deadline. Dec 2004
• Phase 3 Deadline. Dec 2006
• Phase 4 Deadline. Dec 2009

4
Where are we now

• Preparing the guidance for the use of WFD
• Classification, typology, and reference
  conditions Guidance
• Guidance on the analysis on pressures and impacts
  
• Guidance on Public Participation

5
RBM under WFD

• Designation of RBM units and competent
  authorities
• Designation of protected areas
• Analysis of pressures and impacts
• Economic analyses
• Preparation of monitoring programmes
• Identification of status of water
• Identification of environmental objectives
• Identification of programmes of measures

6
Public Participation in the WFD

• Preamble 14
• (14) The success of this Directive relies on
  close cooperation and coherent action at
  Community, Member State and local level as well
  as on information, consultation and involvement
  of the public, including users.

7

• Preamble 46
• (46) To ensure the participation of the general
  public including users of water in the
  establishment and updating of river basin
  management plans, it is necessary to provide
  proper information of planned measures and to
  report on progress with their implementation with
  a view to the involvement of the general public
  before final decisions on the necessary measures
  are adopted.

8
The Article 14 of the Water Framework Directive

• Member States shall encourage the active
  involvement of all interested parties in the
  implementation of this Directive in particular in
  the production, review and updating of the river
  basin management plans.

9

• Annex VII
• RIVER BASIN MANAGEMENT PLANS
• A. River basin management plans shall cover the
  following elements
• 9. a summary of the public information and
  consultation measures taken, their results and
  the changes to the plan made as a consequence
• 11. the contact points and procedures for
  obtaining the background documentation and
  information referred to in Article 14(1), and in
  particular details of the control measures
  adopted in accordance with Article 11(3)(g) and
  11(3)(i) and of the actual monitoring data
  gathered in accordance with Article 8 and Annex V.

10
Public Participation in the different planning
steps

• STEP 1 (By end of 2003) Framework
• Identification of River Basin
• Districts Assignment of the Competent Authorities
• Transposition of the Directive into national
  legislation
• STEP 2 (By end of 2004) Characterization and
  Analysis (Art.4)
• Characterization of the river basin district,
  review of the environmental impact of human
  activity and economic analysis of water use.
• Assessment of the likelihood that surface water
  bodies within the river basin district will fail
  to meet the environmental quality objectives set
  for the bodies under Article 4 (gap analysis
  Annex II (1.5)).

11

• STEP 3 (By end of 2006) Planning for establishing
  programs of measures and outline of river basin
  management plans
• Further characterisation for those bodies
  identified by the gap analysis as being at risk,
  in order to optimise the monitoring programme and
  the programme of measures.
• Monitoring programmes start
• For Public information and consultation about the
  RBMP, MS make available for comments a timetable
  and work programme for the production of the RBMP
  (MS shall allow at least six months to comment on
  those documents).

12

• STEP 4 (By end of 2007)
• For Public information and consultation about
  the RBMP, MS make available for comments an
  overview of the most important water management
  issues within the RBD (MS shall allow at least
  six months to comment on those documents).
• STEP 5 (By the end of 2008)
• For Public information and consultation about the
  RBMP, MS make available for comments a draft copy
  of River Basin Management Plan (MS shall allow at
  least six months to comment on those documents).
• STEP 6 (By the end of 2009)
• Final River Basin Management Plan published
• Programmes of measures shall be established.

13

• STEP 7 (By the end of 2012)
• Implementation
• Programmes of measures implemented
• STEP 8 (By the end of 2015)
• Evaluation and updating, derogations
• Good water status achieved?
• Objectives for Protected Areas achieved?
• Establishing and publishing the next plans and
  programs
• Derogations
• STEP 9 (By the end of 2027)
• Final deadline for achieving objectives,
  following 2 6-year prolongations

14
The EUs document on public participation
Guidance on Public Participation in Relation to
the WFD

• Aim to provide general principles to the experts
  and the stakeholders to accomplish the
  prescriptions of the WFD on public participation
• Main parts of the document
• Implementing the Directive
• Introduction to Public Participation in River
  Basin Management
• Active involvement of all interested parties in
  the planning process of the Directive
• Consultation
• Access to information and background documents
• Evaluation, reporting results of active
  involvement, public information and consultation
  measures
• Success and obstacle factors

15
The basis of the modern RBM the Integration

• The Document gives an essential importance to the
  integration in the following fields
• environmental objectives
• all water resources
• all water uses
• functions and values
• disciplines
• water legislation into a common and coherent
  framework
• wide range of measures
• economic and financial instruments
• stakeholders and the civil society in
  decision-making
• different decision-making levels that influence
  water resources and water status
• water management from different Member States and
  Accession Countries

16
Success Obstacle factors

• Success factors
• change in attitude of public authorities
• organisational consequences
• political commitment and resources
• capacity building and representation of
  stakeholders
• reaching beyond stakeholders to individual
  citizens and enterprises
• demonstrations

• Obstacle factors
• political tumult
• organisational or institutional changes
• changes in budget due to saving/cut backs
• a comparable project has a bad name

17
Problems during the implementation of the WFD

• Complicated wide-ranging exemption and
  derogation conditions
• New implementation problems
• legal harmonisation
• standards harmonisation
• The solution
• political will
• full participation of all stakeholders
• common implementation strategy
• international cooperation

18
What is the Public Participation?

• Public participation is a planned effort to
  involve citizens in the decision-making process
  and to present and resolve citizen conflict
  through mutual two-way communications.

19
The main steps of the public participation
planning process

• Identification of the objectives
• Identification of the selected actors
• Choice of the methods of the public participation
• Preparation of the implementing plan
  

20
Who is the public ?

• The SEIA Directive (2001/42/EC) defines in
  Article 2(d) public as one or more natural or
  legal persons, and, in accordance with national
  legislation or practice, their associations,
  organisations or groups.
• This definition is the same as the definition in
  Article 2(4) of the Aarhus convention it is
  likely to hold as well for the Directive.
  Interested parties can be defined as any
  person, group or organisation with an interest or
  stake in an issue either because they will be
  affected or may have some influence on its
  outcome.

21
Pyramid of the members of the public
participation process
22
Orbits of involvement
23
Why public participation?

• to comply with the Directive and to achieve
  environmental goals and other benefits
• Key potential benefits
• increasing public awareness of environmental
  issues
• making use of knowledge, experience and
  initiatives of the different stakeholders
• public acceptance, commitment and support with
  regard to decision taking processes

24

• more transparent and more creative decision
  making
• less litigation, misunderstandings, fewer delays
  and more effective implementation
• social learning and experienceif participation
  results in constructive dialogue with all
  relevant parties involved then the various
  publics, government and experts can learn from
  each others water awareness.

25
Disadvantages of the Public Participation

• Costs
• include the potential for confusion of the issues
  many new perspectives may be introduced
• it is possible to receive erroneous information
• include uncertainty of the results of the process

26
The main objectives of the public participation

• Establishing and maintain the legitimacy of the
  agency
• Establish and maintain the legitimacy of the
  project
• Establish and maintain the legitimacy of all
  major assumptions and earlier decisions
• Get to know all the potentially affected
  interests
• Identify problems
• Generate solutions
• Articulate and clarify the key issues
• To develop informal acceptance of options

27
What is PP NOT about? (source Public
Participation Guidance)

• Everybody joining be selective with actors, they
  should reflect the right interest
• everybody deciding make clear what the
  responsibilities are for whom
• losing control do organise it well, clear and
  strategically
• consensus at all expenses be prepared that the
  outcome of public participation will be
  compromise between the wishes of several actors
  and that extend of the process is often limited.

28
Models of national PP processes

• General requirements to the models
• To allow active interaction between the proponent
  and participants
• Are expected to be used in any number of stages
  of a participatory process
• Need to be sufficiently flexible to accommodate a
  range of possibilities

29
Four models of Public Participation
30
Relationships in the Commentary model
31
Relationships in the Social Learning Model
32
The Joint Planning Model
33
Relationships in the Consent / Consensus Model
34
Hungarian RBMPs
35
Maros RBMP

• Main Characteristics
• Participative planning in the early stage of the
  project
• snowball method the participants nominated
  based on their opinions other stakeholders who
  could be significant in the area.
• Stakeholder meetings
• Area divided in 3 parts
• Hosting by the majors
• With the participation of well-known
  personalities living or having property in the
  area
• International cooperation participation of
  external (RO) stakeholders (majors, experts,
  leaders of stakeholder-groups)

36
HARMONICOP
HARMONIzing COllaborative Planning
37
MAIN OBJECTIVE

• The main objective of the HarmoniCOP project is
  to increase the understanding of participatory
  river basin management in Europe.
• It aims to generate practically useful
  information about and improve the scientific base
  of social learning in river basin management and
  support the implementation of the public
  participation provisions of the Water Framework
  Directive

38
PUBLIC AND STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION
Public and stakeholder participation refers to
the active involvement of individual citizens,
individual companies, public interest groups and
economic interest groups in decision making.
Communication and information flows are
important aspects of PP. Information and
communication tools are of major importance.
39
ELEMENTS OF SOCIAL LEARNING 1

• Processes of social learning should contain the
  following elements
• Build up a shared problem perception in a group
  of actors, in particular when the problem is
  largely ill-defined (this does not imply
  consensus building).
• Build trust as base for a critical
  self-reflection, which implies recognition of
  individual mental frames and images and how they
  pertain to decision making.

40
ELEMENTS OF SOCIAL LEARNING 2

• Recognize mutual dependencies and interactions in
  the actor network.
• Reflect on assumptions about the dynamics and
  cause-effect relationships in the system to be
  managed.
• Reflect on subjective valuation schemes.
• Engage in collective decision- and learning
  processes (this may include the development of
  new management strategies, and the introduction
  of new formal and informal rules).

41
INNOVATION 1

• HarmoniCOP will give a comprehensive overview and
  analysis of the state of art in the participatory
  RBMP in Europe, using a social learning
  perspective.
• HarmoniCOP will address the scale issue in PP and
  RBMP in a systematic way.

42
INNOVATION 2

• HarmoniCOP will approach information and
  information tools as a means for social learning
  in participatory RBMP.
• HarmoniCOP will do all this while considering the
  different national contexts cultural,
  geographical, institutional an legal.
• The proposed research will specifically deal with
  the challenges posed by the WFD

43
RBMP AND SCALE
International negotiations
Scale
National imple-mentation
National pre-parations
International Basin
Local implementation
National
Local
Time

• RBMP as a sequence of interactions at different
  scales (stylised, assuming a large international
  basin)

44
MAIN GOALS 1

• Preparation of a Handbook on PP methodologies
  for river basin management planning
• Provide insight into social learning in a
  multi-phase multi-level context

45
MAIN GOALS 2

• Increase our understanding of the role of
  information and information tools
• Compare and assess national PP experiences and
  their background
• Involvement of national and subnational
  governments and major stakeholder groups

46
Workpackage Structure
47
WP 1

• Objectives WP1 Framing
• To spell out our approach to PP and explore the
  main issues.
• To develop a glossary in the filed of PP, social
  learning and RBMP for use within the project
• To consult the public and stakeholders on our
  approach and our plans for research
• To validate and further improve our plans for
  research

48
WP 2

• Objectives WP2 - Participation as social learning
• To conceptualise river basin management as sets
  of social processes at different levels,
  characterised by different forms of interest
  representation, conflictivity and
  institutionalisation
• To specify the concept social learning for RBMP
  and make it measurable
• To identify critical issues for participation as
  a means to promote social learning
• To identify possible ways to handle these issues

49
WP 3

• Objectives WP3 - The role of ICT tools
• To provide a methodology to analyse the use of
  ICT tools and to assess their real impact on PP
  improvement

50
WP 4

• Objectives WP4 - National approaches and
  backgrounds
• To provide an overview of PP practices (aim,
  process, methods) in the different countries and,
  where possible, their effects
• To explore the influence of institutional, legal,
  cultural, geographical/physical factors
• To evaluate (national) learned lessons and
  develop practical criteria for evaluating
  participatory RBMP

51
WP 5

• Objectives WP5 - Case studies and experiments
• To gain first hand experience with PP in river
  basin management so as to examine how social
  processes and information tools and models are
  applied and used in practice at the river basin
  level
• To study the issues identified in WP2-4 and test
  the ideas developed on effective PP so as to
  identify approaches that work and those that do
  not, highlighting those which can be put forward
  as good European practices

52
WP 6

• Objectives WP6 Integration
• To integrate the results of WP1-WP5 and summarise
  state of the art on integrated RBMP. This will
  serve as a basis for the production of the
  handbook in WP7.

53
WP 7

• Objectives WP7 - Handbook and dissemination
• To promote effective dissemination of the
  (preliminary) results of the project
• To produce a Handbook on PP methodologies to
  support the implementation of the PP provisions
  of the WFD at the EU, national and subnational
  level and promote social learning in RBMP
• To develop an interactive communication and
  information platform on the internet and make the
  handbook a living document embedded into a
  community of practitioners.

54
Organizations involved

• USF University of Osnabrück, Institute for
  Environmental Systems Research, co-ordinator
  (with Aberdeen University as sub-contractors)
• RBA RBA Centre, Delft University of Technology,
  The Netherlands
• Ecologic, Germany
• KULRD Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Centre
  for Organisational and Personnel Psychology
  (COPP), Belgium
• RWS-RIZA, Ministry of Transport, Public Works
  and Water Management, The Netherlands
• ENPC, LATTS-ENPC, France
• Cemagref, France
• Delft Hydraulics WLDelft Hydraulics, The
  Netherlands
• Colenco Colenco Power Engineering Ltd,
  Switzerland
• ICIS/ UM, University of Maastricht, The
  Netherlands
• UAH University of Alcala de Henares,
  Environmental Economics Group, Department of
  Economic Analysis, Spain
• Uniud University of Udine, Italy
• BUTE Budapest University of Technology and
  Economics, Hungary
• WRc, United Kingdom (with Middlesex University,
  FHRC, as sub-contractors)
• UAB Autonomous University of Barcelona, Spain

55
Dialogue on the Implementation of the WFD in the
Agricultural SectorWater Food Environment
(WFE) Dialogue

• The Hungarian Case - Study

56
The 10 participating countries the 10 Accession
Countries

• Estonia
• Latvia
• Lithuania
• Poland
• Czech Republic
• Slovakia
• Hungary
• Slovenia
• Romania
• Bulgaria

57
Members of the consortium for the organisation of
the CEE WFE Dialogue

• GWP CEE - Global Water Partnership, Central and
  Eastern Europe
• ICID ERWG - International Commission on
  Irrigation and Drainage, European Regional
  Working Group
• Countries represented in ICID ERWG Austria,
  Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Finland,
  France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Lithuania,
  Macedonia, The Netherlands, Poland, Portugal,
  Romania, Russia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain,
  Switzerland, Ukraine, United Kingdom
• WWF - World Wide Fund for Nature,
  Danube-Carpathian Programme
• Coordinator of the CEE and the Hungarian Dialogue
  process and the editor of the Final Reports
  prof. István Ijjas, BUTE

58
Objectives of the Dialogue

• General objective
• Ensure that all waters meet at least good
  status by 2015 and ensure the sustainable
  agriculture development
• Specific objective
• The successful implementation of EU WFD in the
  field of agricultural water management by
  involving all stakeholders to the planning and
  execution process

59
KEY ISSUESIntegrated River Basin Management
Planning

• WATER USE AND WATER SERVICES
• RBMP - national guidelines
• economic and social objectives
• (sufficient/sustainable water use/water
  services)
• target group citizens

• WATER PROTECTION
• RBMP - EU WFD
• environmental objectives
• (good status of water)
• target group ecosystems

60
Levels of co-ordination

• Danube basin level
• Bilateral, multilateral level
• National level - regional level

61
Members of the consortium for the organisation of
the WFE Dialogue in Hungary

• Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development
• Ministry for Environment and Water Management
• WWF World Wide Fund for Nature, Hungary
• ICID Hungarian National Committee
• National Union of Water Management Associations
• 72 Water Management Associations organised
  River Basin oriented
• The Dialogue was supported by the
• Hungarian Hydrological Society and the
• Budapest University of Technology and Economics.

62
Importance of water management in Hungary

• the flood plains along the rivers occupy 21.248
  km2 (22.8 of the country)
• the flood plains comprise one-third of the arable
  lands in the country, 1.8 million hectares of
  valuable fields, where the value of the annual
  crop yield surpasses 200 thousand million Ft (800
  million )
• in close to 700 communities 2.5 million people
  are at risk

63
The participating WMAs
64
Main Characteristics of the Dialogue

• The Dialogue is a two-way process, top down
  approach initiated by the Ministry of
  Agriculture
• The countryside events are organised in a form of
  a road show
• General program of the meetings
• Plenary presentations summarizing the
  background information sent formerly
• Small group negotiations 10-15 members, forming
  a common accepted answers the question defined
  before
• Final plenary session the groups present their
  opinion and the other participants have the
  chance to reflect on it.

65
The 4 regions the 4 main river basin units
66
Dialogue meetings in Hungary, 2003
67
Costs financing tasks

• Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development
• Development of Knowledge Base, logistics of the
  organisation of the 12 regional and 3 national
  Dialogue meetings, reporting, keynote speakers,
  facilitators, costs of travelling of the invited
  experts
• Printing costs of the translated WFD documents
• Coffee breaks during the National Dialogue
  meetings held in Budapest
• GWP CEE
• Direct costs of the participation in the
  international Dialogue. Cooperation with and
  reporting for the Global WFE Dialogue and the
  CEE WFE Dialogue
• GWP, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural
  Development and BUTE
• Participation in international meetings on Global
  and CEE WFE Dialogue activities, tools and
  benefits

68

• Water Management Associations
• Regional meetings (organised for the
  representatives of one of the four region of
  Hungary, 30 50 participants)
• Costs of one meeting
• Printing costs of the WFD documents
• Costs of travelling to the National Dialogue
  meetings held in Budapest (organised for the
  representatives of the 76 Water Management
  Associations, the relevant institutions and the
  consortium partners in Budapest, 80-150
  participants)

69
Ongoing Activities, 2004

• 1st round
• Tendering procedure
• Establishment of a expertise network among and by
  the WMAs
• 2nd round
• Evaluation of the results of the 1st and 2nd
  Phases
• Analyses of pressures and impacts of human
  activities
• Characterisation of the River Basin districts
  (and Water Bodies)
• Economic analyses of water uses
• Identification of those water bodies, which can
  not meet the requirement of the WFD
• unfeasible or unreasonably expensive to achieve
  good status
• reasons of overriding public interest
• unrealistic scientific or professional points of
  view

70
Results

• The main result of the Dialogue was the Response
  of Hungary to the European Commissions Working
  Document The Water Framework Directive (WFD)
  and tools within the Common Agricultural Policy
  (CAP) to support its implementation and also the
  new version of the EC Working Document on
  WFD/CAP.
• The Hungarian and English version of the Working
  Document was also available on the website of the
  Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development and
  on the website of the Union of Water Management
  Associations.
• It has to be mentioned, that the 80 of the
  Hungarian opinions were adopted by the Water
  Directors. This result shows the usefulness and
  effectiveness of the Dialogue processes and of
  the method applied during the process, the social
  learning.

71

• Four Water Management Associations agreed with
  the WWF to start common pilot projects for the
  planning of measures to achieve the good status
  of wetlands and/or reactivate former flood plain
  areas in sub-basins covered by the Associations.

72
The key questions discussed by the Dialogue
Process

• Who was the Dialogue convener?
• Which external agencies were supporting the
  Dialogue?
• How the governmental agencies were involved in
  the process?
• How the Dialogue was linked to the political
  process and institutions?
• How was the dialogue linked to the other
  programs/actions for the implementation of the
  WFD?
• What are the key issues being addressed?

73

• What are the major obstacles/constraints that
  need to be overcome?
• How was the dialogue process organized/planned?
• Who were the key stakeholders in the dialogue
  process and what procedures have been applied to
  assure full stakeholder participation?
• What Dialogue support tools have been used?
• Is there sufficient research/knowledge backing to
  support the issue under discussion/consideration
  or there is a need for more background
  studies/research?
• What outputs do you see emerging from this
  dialogue? How do you plan to document the
  learning, experiences and processes?
• Do you require external support to conduct the
  future steps of the Dialogue? If so what type of
  support are you looking for?

74

• Final Report on the first phase of the Dialogue
  2001-2003, February 2003
• Dialogue on Water, Food and Environment in
  Central and Eastern Europe Dialogue on the
  Implementation of the EU Water Framework
  Directive in Agricultural Water Management in
  Central and Eastern European EU Candidate
  Countries First phase 2001-2003
• From the Hague to Kyoto
• CEE WFE Dialogue - Dialogue on Water, Food and
  Environment in Central and Eastern Europe -
  Dialogue on the Implementation of the EU Water
  Framework Directive in Agricultural Water
  Management in Central and Eastern European EU
  Candidate Countries
• Dialogue on the Implementation of the EU Water
  Framework Directive in Agricultural Water
  Management in the Central and East European EU
  Candidate Countries - Second Phase of the
  Dialogue, Edited by Istvan Ijjas, coordinator of
  the CEE WFE Dialogue
• The dialogues for this Final Report have
  been undertaken during the period September 2003
  February 2004. The Final Report was completed
  in February-March 2004. The views set out and
  analysis presented are those of the authors of
  the national report, the editor of this report
  and the participants of the national dialogues
  and do not necessarily represent the views of the
  GWP, ICID and WWF in general or of the national
  CWPs or of the Council of GWP CEE.