How different institutional arrangements promote integrated river basin management. Evidence from the Baltic Sea Region

The EU Water Framework Directive introduces the principle of integrated river basin management, incorporating both the idea of spatial fit between ecosystems and social systems and a requirement to integrate water management across scales and sectors. In designing their implementation setups, member states must therefore address both the roles of different institutional actors and the interplay among institutions. In this paper, we will explore strengths and weaknesses of different institutional arrangements for integrated water management through a comparative analysis of river basin management planning processes in six countries around the Baltic Sea. We use theories on multi-level governance, regime interplay and institutional effectiveness. We find that, in most cases, central governments have played a dominant role in the formulation of river basin management plans, while local influence has been somewhat limited. The tight procedural deadlines of the directive appear to have pushed for more centralisation than originally intended by the countries. But the analysis also shows that interplay mechanisms such as norms, ideas and incentives do promote effective institutional interplay and may serve to overcome coordination problems of implementation structures. Moreover, it is expected that institutional interplay will improve over time resulting in more integrated management.

[1]  J. Newig,et al.  Environmental governance: participatory, multi-level - and effective? , 2009 .

[2]  T. Moss The governance of land use in river basins: prospects for overcoming problems of institutional interplay with the EU Water Framework Directive , 2004 .

[3]  The Water Framework Directive: spatial and institutional integration , 2008 .

[4]  L. Hooghe,et al.  Unraveling the Central State, but How? Types of Multi-level Governance , 2003, American Political Science Review.

[5]  S. Oberthür,et al.  Interplay: Exploring Institutional Interaction , 2008 .

[6]  F. Scharpf Games Real Actors Could Play , 1994 .

[7]  Oran R. Young,et al.  Vertical Interplay among Scale-dependent Environmental and Resource Regimes , 2006 .

[8]  A. Gouldson,et al.  Interplay of actors, scales, frameworks and regimes in the governance of biodiversity , 2009 .

[9]  O. Stokke The Interplay of International Regimes: Putting Effectiveness Theory to Work , 2001 .

[10]  Jens Newig,et al.  Multilevel Water Governance and Problems of Scale: Setting the Stage for a Broader Debate , 2010, Environmental management.

[11]  Andrea Lenschow,et al.  Do New Brooms Really Sweep Cleaner? : Implementation of New Instruments in EU Environmental Policy , 2000 .

[12]  C. Folke,et al.  The problem of fit between ecosystems and institutions , 2007 .

[13]  Evert Vedung,et al.  Policy instruments : Typologies and theories , 1998 .

[14]  D. Liefferink,et al.  The EU Water Framework Directive: A multi-dimensional analysis of implementation and domestic impact , 2011 .

[15]  O. Fritsch,et al.  Mind the Costs: Rescaling and Multi-Level Environmental Governance in Venice Lagoon , 2010, Environmental management.