Transforming European Water Governance? Participation and River Basin Management under the EU Water Framework Directive in 13 Member States

water Article Transforming European Water Governance? Participation and River Basin Management under the EU Water Framework Directive in 13 Member States Nicolas W. Jager 1,*, Edward Challies 1, Elisa Kochskämper 1, Jens Newig 1, David Benson 2, Kirsty Blackstock 3, Kevin Collins 4, Anna Ernst 5, Mariele Evers 6, Judith Feichtinger 7, Oliver Fritsch 8, Geoffrey Gooch 9, Wiebke Grund 10, Beatrice Hedelin 11, Nuria Hernández-Mora 12, Frank Hüesker 13, Dave Huitema 14,15, Kenneth Irvine 16,17, Andreas Klinke 18, Leonie Lange 10, Delphine Loupsans 19, Mark Lubell 20, Carmen Maganda 21, Piotr Matczak 22, Marc Parés 23, Heli Saarikoski 24, Lenka Slavíková 25, Sonja van der Arend 26 and Yorck von Korff 27 1Research Group on Governance, Participation and Sustainability, Leuphana University Lüneburg, Lüneburg 21335, Germany; [email protected] (E.C.); [email protected] (E.K.); [email protected] (J.N.) 2Environment and Sustainability Institute, University of Exeter, Cornwall TR10 9FE, UK; [email protected] 3Social, Economic and Geographic Sciences Group, James Hutton Institute, Craigiebuckler, Aberdeen AB15 8QH, Scotland, UK; kirsty[email protected] 4Applied Systems Thinking in Practice Research Group, Engineering & Innovation Department, The Open University, Milton Keynes MK7 6AA, UK; [email protected] 5Forschungszentrum Jülich, Institute for Energy and Climate Research—Systems Analyses and Technology Evaluation, Jülich 52425, Germany; [email protected] 6Geographisches Institut, Universität Bonn, Bonn 53113, Germany; [email protected] 7Centre for Social Innovation (CSI), Vienna 1150, Austria; [email protected] 8School of Geography and water@leeds, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, UK; [email protected] 9DelPar Environment, Linköping 58752, Sweden; [email protected] 10 Leuphana University Lüneburg, Lüneburg 21335, Germany; [email protected] (W.G.); [email protected] (L.L.) 11 Centre for Climate and Safety, Karlstad University, Karlstad 651 88, Sweden; [email protected] 12 Departamento de Geografía Humana, Universidad de Sevilla, Sevilla 41004, Spain; [email protected] 13 Fachgebiet Siedlungswasserwirtschaft, TU Kaiserslautern, Kaiserslautern 67663, Germany; [email protected] 14 Faculty of Management, Science and Technology, Open University of the Netherlands, Heerlen 6419 AT, The Netherlands; [email protected] 15 Institute for Environmental Studies (IVM), VU University Amsterdam, Amsterdam 1081 HV, The Netherlands 16 School of Natural Sciences, Trinity College, University of Dublin, Dublin 2, Ireland; [email protected]g 17 UNESCO Institute for Water Education, Delft 2611 AX, The Netherlands 18 Environmental Policy Institute, Memorial University of Newfoundland, Corner Brook, NL A2H 5G4, Canada; [email protected] 19 ONEMA, French National Agency for Water and Aquatic Environments, Vincennes 94300, France; [email protected] 20 Department of Environmental Science and Policy, University of California, Davis, CA 95616, USA; [email protected] 21 Instituto de Ecología, A.C.—INECOL, Xalapa Enríquez, Ver. 91070, Mexico; [email protected] 22 Institute of Sociology, Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznan 61-712, Poland; [email protected] 23 Institut de Govern i Polítiques Públiques, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Bellaterra 08193, Spain; marc.par[email protected] 24 Finnish Environment Institute, Environmental Policy Centre, P.O. Box 140, 00251 Helsinki, Finland; [email protected] 25 IEEP, Institute for Economic and Environmental Policy, Univerzita Jana Evangelisty Purkynˇe v Ústí nad Labem, Ústí nad Labem-mˇesto 400 96, Czech Republic; [email protected] Water 2016,8, 156; doi:10.3390/w8040156 www.mdpi.com/journal/water Water 2016,8, 156 2 of 22 26 SenF–Serious Fiction-www.seriousfiction.nl, Wageningen 6703 AP, The Netherlands; [email protected] 27 Flow-ing, Montferrier sur Lez 34980, France; yorck.von-korf[email protected] *Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +49-4131-677-2265 Academic Editors: Giacomo Zanni, Davide Viaggi and Meri Raggi Received: 19 January 2016; Accepted: 12 April 2016; Published: 19 April 2016 Abstract: The European Union (EU) Water Framework Directive (WFD) requires EU member states to produce and implement river basin management plans, which are to be designed and updated via participatory processes that inform, consult with, and actively involve all interested stakeholders. The assumption of the European Commission is that stakeholder participation, and institutional adaptation and procedural innovation to facilitate it, are essential to the effectiveness of river basin planning and, ultimately, the environmental impact of the Directive. We analyzed official documents and the WFD literature to compare implementation of the Directive in EU member states in the initial WFD planning phase (2000–2009). Examining the development of participatory approaches to river basin management planning, we consider the extent of transformation in EU water governance over the period. Employing a mixed quantitative and qualitative approach, we map the implementation “trajectories” of 13 member states, and then provide a detailed examination of shifts in river basin planning and participation in four member states (Germany, Sweden, Poland and France) to illustrate the diversity of institutional approaches observed. We identify a general tendency towards increased, yet circumscribed, stakeholder participation in river basin management in the member states examined, alongside clear continuities in terms of their respective pre-WFD institutional and procedural arrangements. Overall, the WFD has driven a highly uneven shift to river basin-level planning among the member states, and instigated a range of efforts to institutionalize stakeholder involvement—often through the establishment of advisory groups to bring organized stakeholders into the planning process. Keywords: river basin management; participation; stakeholder engagement; integrated water resources management; institutional adaptation; mandated participatory planning 1. Introduction The European Union (EU) Water Framework Directive (WFD), with its aim to protect and restore the European water environment via participatory and integrative river basin management, is widely regarded as the most ambitious and comprehensive piece of EU environmental legislation to date. Adopted by the European Parliament and Council in 2000, the WFD (Directive 2000/60/EC) sought to harmonize EU water policy, which was until then highly compartmentalized and had failed to safeguard aquatic ecosystems and water quality within the EU [ 1 , 2 ]. The WFD, one of a “new generation” of EU environmental directives [ 3 ], was seen by the European Commission and commentators alike as destined to transform the European water sector [ 4 – 6 ]. The Directive introduced the concept of “good status” (ecological and chemical for surface waters, and chemical and quantitative for groundwater), requiring that all water bodies reach good status by the end of 2015. To this end, the WFD set ambitious procedural requirements and means by which its goals should be achieved. Among other innovations, it requires that planning and implementation be carried out: (1) at the scale of hydrologically defined river basin districts (RBDs); and (2) in a participatory manner, encouraging the active involvement of “all interested parties”—including water users, other stakeholders, and the wider public. Together, these requirements have necessitated widespread institutional redesign and adaptation (albeit to differing degrees) among the member states, and thus resulted in a wide variety of experiences across the EU. Water 2016,8, 156 3 of 22 With the entering into force of the Directive, member states were required to identify RBDs and river basin authorities, and make legislative provisions for implementation by the end of 2003. Implementation then proceeds in six-year cycles, and involves the production and updating of river basin management plans (RBMPs) and programs of measures (PoMs) with the involvement of stakeholders and the public. Member states were required to have produced the first RBMPs and put in place PoMs by 2009. With the implementation of these first plans and the completion of the first management cycle (2009–2015), it appears timely to assess whether the WFD has actually lived up to expectations and led to institutional redesign as envisaged. Insofar as this “mandated participatory planning” approach to WFD implementation [ 7 ] requires specific deliverables and procedures, and imposes a common timeframe on member states, a broad comparative analysis of national-level experience across the EU can potentially provide valuable insight into how implementation is proceeding given the varied national contexts that the Directive encounters. We focus in this article on the evolution of formal arrangements for participatory river basin management in 13 member states over the initial planning phase (2000–2009). Section 2 considers the river basin management and participation prescriptions of the WFD in light of the participatory environmental governance literature, and takes stock of prior comparative studies of WFD implementation. Section 3outlines our methods, before Section 4presents a mapping of “implementation trajectories” across the selected member states, and explores different experiences with WFD implementation, focusing on four member states (France, Germany, Poland and Sweden) for illustrative purposes. Section 5draws conclusions and makes recommendations for further research. 2. EU Water Framework Directive: Key Requirements, Policy Innovations, and Assessments to Date 2.1. River Basin Management In accordance with the Directive (WFD Art. 3), member states are required to assign all river basins within their territories to river basin districts, and make necessary institutional provisions—including the establishment of a competent authority—for application of the Directive within these RBDs. International basins are to be dealt with by member states in cooperation, although each member state is ultimately responsible for the portion of any basin within its territory. Accordingly, the EU has been divided into 128 RBDs, including 49 that span national borders. These new management units thereby transcend and intersect established jurisdictional boundaries at multiple levels, requiring cooperation among authorities and units that may not have shared responsibilities previously [ 8 ]. The extent to which this scalar shift has actually occurred is the subject of some debate [ 9 – 11 ], but such reorganization clearly implies an important transition in European water governance. The river basin management approach adopted in the WFD can be attributed to a gradual paradigm shift towards more integrated resource management that has shaped European water governance over the last two decades [ 12 , 13 ]. The logic behind transitioning to a system of ecosystem-based water resources management in river basins lies in two basic, interrelated arguments. First, in line with the idea of spatial “fit” between the geographical extent of a natural resource and the territorial scope of responsible institutions [ 11 , 14 ], it is assumed that the management of water resources in river basins is most efficiently and effectively overseen by authorities organized at that scale. Second, according to principles of integrated water resources management (IWRM), sustainable management of water resources can only occur in the context of integrated and coordinated management of resources and the environment at large. Therefore, water policy in a given basin should take account of and be coordinated with policy in multiple other sectors, such as agriculture, conservation, fisheries, energy, and so on. Proponents of IWRM thus explicitly advocate for balancing social and ecological concerns in river basins, calling for “co-ordinated development and management of water, land and related resources, in order to maximize the resultant economic and social welfare in an equitable manner without compromising the sustainability of vital ecosystems” [ 15 ] (p. 22). Both of these discourses shaped the WFD [ 16 , 17 ] and are clearly reflected in the text of the Directive (e.g., WFD Preamble (16); Art. 3 (2–5)). Water 2016,8, 156 4 of 22 It is worthwhile noting that water governance institutions on river basin scales are no panacea for effective and legitimate water resource management [ 18 , 19 ]. Empirical evidence on the performance of such institutions is still rare [ 20 , 21 ], and the appropriateness of hydrological units as the “natural” and “ideal” scale for water governance is increasingly questioned (e.g., [ 22 – 24 ]). In particular, IWRM and river basin management conflict to the extent that an integrative management approach may require addressing social and environmental processes and resources that do not conform to the boundaries of a given river basin. Hence, “fitting” institutions to water resources may create new misfits in other policy fields [ 11 ]. Delineating a hydrologically defined catchment or river basin for management purposes is a political decision [ 25 ], requiring trade-offs between environmental and social factors, and competing interests [ 23 , 24 ], whereas notions of river basins as the given “natural” units for management have been critiqued as depoliticizing water management [22,26]. 2.2. Public Participation A second notable innovation of the WFD is its requirement for stakeholder involvement in the river basin management planning process. The Directive stipulates timeframes and procedures for the provision of information and for consultation at key stages of the planning process, and requires that member states “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” (WFD Art. 14 (1)). On the one hand, the intent of the Directive in this regard is clear, with participation being seen as essential for successful implementation (WFD Preamble (14)). On the other hand, the wording of the Directive is in some respects highly ambiguous, and leaves considerable room for interpretation as to who should be involved, at what stage, and how—especially around the “obligation to encourage” active involvement [ 27 , 28 ]. While public participation is strongly advocated in the Common Implementation Strategy (CIS) and associated guidance documents (e.g., [ 29 ]), these remain legally non-binding, and knowledge of such guidance documents among implementing bodies can be poor [ 30 ]. Despite the vision for participatory planning reflected in the CIS and implied in the preamble to the WFD, the actual legal requirements in Article 14 of the Directive focus mainly on information provision and consultation. Further, the advanced technical requirements of the Directive may restrict its compatibility with the provisions for participation [ 10 ], and may therefore serve to affirm business-as-usual expert-led consultative approaches. The WFD provisions for participatory planning can be seen in terms of a codification and institutionalization of what has been labeled a “shift from government to governance” in the management of resources and the environment in Europe and beyond [ 17 , 31 ]. While its extent and nature are hotly debated, the idea of a shift to governance is supposed to capture a general decline over the last several decades in the expert-led managerial governing paradigm, and the increasing involvement of non-state actors—including organized stakeholders and the general public—in public decision-making [ 32 ]. This process has been driven both from “below” as citizens have demanded more say in the decisions that affect them, and from “above” as authorities have sought to realize certain benefits of involving stakeholders and the public in decision-making. In this sense, the rationale behind the statutory obligation for participation in the WFD is clearly a pragmatic and instrumental one [ 33 , 34 ], as the CIS guidance document on public participation spells out: “Public participation is not an end in itself but a tool to achieve the environmental objectives of the Water Framework Directive” [29] (p. vi). While numerous definitions can be found in the literature, there is general agreement that participation is a fundamentally multi-dimensional concept. Following Fung [ 35 ] and Newig and Kvarda [ 36 ], participatory processes may be assessed by considering at least three dimensions: (1) participation may be more or less inclusive of relevant stakeholders and the public; (2) information exchange may be more or less intensive, ranging from simple one-way provision or elicitation of information, to intensive and repeated face-to-face dialogue and deliberation; and (3) power, in the form of process and decision control, may be delegated to participants to a greater or lesser extent, affording differing degrees of influence over the final plan or decision. The literature is replete with Water 2016,8, 156 5 of 22 hypotheses on the relationship between participation and environmental impact [ 37 ], but evidence is highly conflicting, with findings from numerous empirical studies supporting a variety of competing claims. Despite conflicting evidence, it is assumed that participation can improve the environmental quality of decisions through opening decision-making up to environmental concerns; incorporating environmentally relevant lay or local knowledge; fostering learning, innovation and creative solutions; and producing common-good oriented solutions and mutual gains (e.g., [ 32 , 38 – 40 ]). Furthermore, participation may improve implementation and compliance by producing more feasibly implementable decisions; generating acceptance among stakeholders; resolving stakeholder conflicts and conflicts of interest; and building trust and social capital relevant for implementation (e.g., [35,40–42]). 2.3. Assessments of WFD Implementation to Date Research on WFD implementation has proliferated over the last decade. We focus in the following sections on developments relating specifically to the institutionalization of river basin management, and the adoption of participatory planning across the member states. Of course evidence in relation to these shifts is also mixed, and there is considerable (and arguably quite justified) skepticism as to the extent to which the Directive has brought about real change from business as usual [ 31 , 43 – 45 ]. While many critiques point to the experiences of single countries or particular case studies, there are fewer attempts to arrive at a broader comparative view. That said, several comparative studies have provided some valuable and relevant insights. The European Commission itself is monitoring implementation of the Directive, and the first comprehensive implementation reports were required from the Commission in 2012. These comprised member state-specific assessments, as well as a “European overview” and a report to the European Parliament and the Council [ 46 , 47 ]. The 2012 assessment noted that 24 of 27 member states had submitted RBMPs, and that 124 of an expected 174 RBMPs had been received [ 46 ] (p. 4). Regarding legal and institutional adaptation and the development of appropriate governance structures for integrated river basin management, the report found that this had “not taken place in most Member States, where there is a continuation of the status quo” [ 46 ] (p. 8). Furthermore, the designation of hydrologically defined RBDs was found to have taken place in most cases, but with notable exceptions where administrative borders were taken to define RBDs [ 47 ]. Coordination among different authorities operating at the RBD scale was also found to be highly variable [ 47 ]. The report was less clear on public participation in the planning process, identifying good examples of mechanisms for stakeholder involvement, but also considerable difficulties in establishing the effectiveness and influence of these. Furthermore, the Commission reported having received complaints about participatory processes that have failed to facilitate meaningful input and involvement by stakeholders [47]. Aside from the Commission’s monitoring reports, which are based on member states’ own reporting, several studies have examined WFD implementation in comparative perspective. Analyzing consultation documents produced by all member states up to February 2009, Kampa et al. [ 48 ] assessed consultation processes around the identification of significant water management issues and the drafting of RBMPs. Regarding active involvement, they found that stakeholders participated in an advisory capacity via working groups in around half of all RBDs, and were involved in actual decision-making in approximately 20%. Working group composition, however, was found to vary depending on the administrative level at which the groups were convened, but overwhelmingly comprised government representatives. Also investigating consultation processes, Scheuer and Rouillard [ 49 ] surveyed experts and NGO representatives across Europe in an investigation of stakeholder consultation on significant water management issues and measures. They found that participation processes did not meet the expectations of environmental NGOs, who generally felt they were brought into the process too late and had insufficient influence over decisions. Hedin et al. [ 50 ] investigated the implications of WFD implementation for national spatial planning in eight Baltic Sea region member states plus Norway. Their detailed country reports showed that WFD implementation up to 2006 was in most cases adapted to prevailing institutional settings in water management, representing a “minimalist approach” to implementation, and rather limited institutional adaptation. Water 2016,8, 156 6 of 22 Focusing on the same region, Nielsen et al. [ 51 ] analyzed six member states. They found a high degree of centralization in the planning process, with less involvement of local authorities than expected. They also observed limited uptake of local knowledge, which they find obstructs integrated river basin management. Keessen et al. [ 52 ] compared legal provisions for WFD implementation in 11 member states, and concluded that the Directive leaves so much room for policy discretion by member states that it produces vastly different approaches to implementation—including in the realm of policy integration—and hampers comparative analyses of implementation. In their detailed analysis of five member states, Uitenboogaart et al. [ 53 ] also considered the degree of policy discretion member states have in implementing the Directive, comparing pre-WFD conditions, formal transposition, goal-setting, and policy integration to find widely varying degrees of ambition among the member states studied. Similarly, Bourblanc et al. [ 54 ], considered different levels of ambition for WFD implementation through an examination of political-institutional systems in four member states. Other studies have compared a variety of governance adaptations and approaches to participation in different member states (e.g., [55–58]). Many of the studies mentioned above usefully adopt a “before and after WFD” approach, but most broadly comparative research does not cover the full initial planning phase. Further, more attention has been paid to legal adjustments and consultation processes at the earlier stages of the implementation process, than to actual institutional adaptation at the river basin level or the active involvement of stakeholders and the public. However, these studies clearly do provide valuable insights. Above all, the research suggests that progress towards meeting the substantive targets of the WFD has been varied, and fulfillment of its procedural requirements patchy. These diverse experiences are increasingly recounted in the burgeoning literature on WFD implementation, as standalone or small-n case studies. Below we report on our survey of this literature, and aim to structure the variety of experiences across 13 member states in terms of formal institutional shifts to river basin management and innovations in public and stakeholder participation. We chose these 13 states (Austria, Czech Republic, Denmark, England and Wales, France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Netherlands, Poland, Scotland, Spain, and Sweden) to reflect the variety of geographical conditions and political, and institutional experiences among the 28 EU member states (although Scotland is not an EU member state, it is handled separately in our analysis due to characteristics of its water management regime that set it apart from England and Wales). The availability and accessibility of sufficient information in scientific literature was also an important determining factor. 3. Materials and Methods To allow for a structured analysis of WFD implementation across EU member states, we identified two basic parameters as the basis for cross-case comparison: public participation, and river basin-scale management. Regarding participation, we are interested in “active involvement” as provided for by the Directive (WFD Art. 14) and discussed above. Accordingly, our focus lies on activities and initiatives geared towards active involvement of stakeholders and the public in the river basin management planning phase. Building on multi-dimensional conceptualizations of participation as discussed in the previous section, we defined five characteristic dimensions: ‚ Accessibility of the process: The extent to which access to the process by stakeholders and the public was constrained (e.g., presence of barriers or selection processes that regulated the access of potential participants). ‚ Representation of interests: Degree to which the constellation of interests involved in the participatory process was representative of the underlying stakeholder field. ‚ Power delegation to participants: The extent to which participants were able to influence the decisions to be taken (degree of decision-control granted to participants). ‚ Communication and information sharing: The extent to which the process provided opportunities for participants to engage in communicative interactions with each other and the authorities (e.g., listen as spectator vs. deliberate and negotiate). Water 2016,8, 156 7 of 22 ‚ Number of participatory processes: Number of separate process types comprising the participatory planning process. The WFD requires preparation of RBMPs and PoMs on hydrological scales, but this prescription does not necessarily produce institutional adaptation and rescaling of planning competences. Therefore we assess the scalar position of main responsible actors—i.e., whether they are established at hydrological or administrative scales—in the policy process, for which we defined four factors: ‚ Spatial planning reference: The scale serving as the main reference point for water resources management, either hydrological or administrative. ‚ Legal responsibility: The institution that is legally responsible for water resources management and designated as Competent Authority under the WFD. ‚Planning responsibility: The actor or institution that drives and oversees the planning process. ‚ Implementation responsibility: The actor or institution with primary responsibility for implementation of measures. The data basis for this analysis comprises various primary and secondary studies and documentary sources. The first step was a 2010 research workshop, involving the co-authors of this article, which compared the water governance regimes and experiences with WFD implementation in EU member states. In their capacity as country experts, workshop participants provided detailed information on the water management regime for their respective country, both prior to and after WFD implementation. In a second step, these standardized workshop reports were augmented with a thorough literature and document search on water resources management and WFD implementation in the countries of interest. We chose to examine 13 countries, namely Austria, the Czech Republic, Denmark, England and Wales, France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, the Netherlands, Poland, Scotland, Spain, and Sweden. This selection was made on analytical and practical grounds. It was our objective to cover a wide variety of environmental and political contexts; hence, we selected cases across most of the European regions. However, our research design also aimed at triangulation of data sources to maximize validity. Hence, we chose to rely only on those cases where the expert judgments of workshop participants could be complemented with sufficient additional information from primary and secondary sources. Scotland is treated separately from England and Wales, as responsibilities for water resource management, and hence the implementation of the WFD, are part of the devolution of competencies from Westminster to Scottish Government. For each participation and river basin management factor mentioned above we compiled a qualitative assessment of the situation in each country, based on a thorough reading of the workshop reports and collected literature. To contrast post-WFD experiences with pre-WFD water resource management regimes, each factor was observed for two points in time: for the year 2000 (t0), representing the status quo before WFD implementation, and for post-2009 (t1), with completion of the initial planning phase and beginning of implementation of measures. Based on these short written country descriptions we employed a coding procedure to translate the qualitative factors into quantitative variables. For those factors related to public participation (accessibility, representation, power delegation, communication) we used a 5-point Likert-like scale that measured the degree to which a given dimension of participation was present or absent (see Table S1 for further detail). The number of processes was simply counted. The factors for river basin management (spatial, reference, legal responsibility, planning, implementation) were quantified using a binary scale with 1 indicating planning on a hydrological scale (e.g., basin, sub-basin, and catchment) and 0 indicating political-territorial units (e.g., state, county, and municipality). All items were separately coded by one coder and results were later verified by co-authors with the respective expertise. See Table S1 for a detailed description of variables and measurement scales. A full list of literature coded is also provided in the Supplementary Material to this article. Water 2016,8, 156 8 of 22 This uniform data set (see Table S2) formed the basis for our subsequent analysis, reported in the following section. Analysis proceeded in two main steps. Initially, in order to map the water governance “trajectories” of each of the 13 countries studied, we calculated an aggregate index for public participation and river basin management. To this end, we standardized and aggregated the single variables (details in Supplementary Material), each measured for two points in time. This underpinned a mapping of the implementation “trajectories” of 13 member states, presented in the following Section 4.1. Next, we did a cluster analysis involving all single variables prior to and after WFD implementation, in order to categorize these transitions. We conducted a hierarchical cluster analysis for the 13 selected countries using Gower’s general dissimilarity coefficient, and Ward’s method of agglomeration. In so doing we take account of the different measurement scales, and aim to minimize within-group variance, while maximizing between-group dissimilarity. On the basis of this cluster analysis, we examine in-depth and compare for illustrative purposes four member states; one representing each cluster. In each case, we discuss pre-WFD water governance arrangements, and consider shifts in river basin management and participation upon completion of the initial planning phase to 2009. While the WFD calls for the establishment of “competent authorities” at the river basin district level, our analysis here is at the national level for two reasons. First, as we elaborate below, institutional arrangements at the RBD level are not yet sufficiently advanced in most cases to support a comparative analysis. Second, given the lack of specific guidance in the WFD itself, the type and extent of participatory processes required in the formulation of RBMPs is largely determined at the national level, and member states are, after all, the liable parties in case of non-compliance. RBD-scale authorities may evolve in future WFD management cycles, in which case future analysis can focus on developments at this scale. 4. Results We present the results of our analysis in two steps. First, we provide an overview of the “trajectories” of 13 EU member states according to institutional shifts in river basin management planning, and stakeholder participation in water governance over the period 2000 to 2009 (see Figure 1), and present the hierarchical cluster analysis (Figure 2). Second, we turn to the in-depth analysis of four illustrative cases to explore the different types of implementation experiences. Water 2016, 8, 156 8 of 22 underpinned a mapping of the implementation “trajectories” of 13 member states, presented in the following Section 4.1. Next, we did a cluster analysis involving all single variables prior to and after WFD implementation, in order to categorize these transitions. We conducted a hierarchical cluster analysis for the 13 selected countries using Gower’s general dissimilarity coefficient, and Ward’s method of agglomeration. In so doing we take account of the different measurement scales, and aim to minimize within-group variance, while maximizing between-group dissimilarity. On the basis of this cluster analysis, we examine in-depth and compare for illustrative purposes four member states; one representing each cluster. In each case, we discuss pre-WFD water governance arrangements, and consider shifts in river basin management and participation upon completion of the initial planning phase to 2009. While the WFD calls for the establishment of “competent authorities” at the river basin district level, our analysis here is at the national level for two reasons. First, as we elaborate below, institutional arrangements at the RBD level are not yet sufficiently advanced in most cases to support a comparative analysis. Second, given the lack of specific guidance in the WFD itself, the type and extent of participatory processes required in the formulation of RBMPs is largely determined at the national level, and member states are, after all, the liable parties in case of non-compliance. RBD-scale authorities may evolve in future WFD management cycles, in which case future analysis can focus on developments at this scale. 4. Results We present the results of our analysis in two steps. First, we provide an overview of the “trajectories” of 13 EU member states according to institutional shifts in river basin management planning, and stakeholder participation in water governance over the period 2000 to 2009 (see Figure 1), and present the hierarchical cluster analysis (Figure 2). Second, we turn to the in-depth analysis of four illustrative cases to explore the different types of implementation experiences. Figure 1. Trajectories of WFD-related governance change in 13 EU member states: AT = Austria; CZ = Czech Republic; DE = Germany; DK = Denmark; EN = England and Wales; ES = Spain; FR = France; HU = Hungary; IE = Ireland; NL = Netherlands; PL = Poland; SC = Scotland; and SE = Sweden. The x-axis is a four-dimensional “degree of participation” index, described in Section 3 and the Supplementary Material. The y-axis is not to be read as a continuous scale, and no distinction is to be made between the position of member states within a given stage or band on the y-axis (arrows have been spaced for presentation and ease of interpretation only). Figure 1. Trajectories of WFD-related governance change in 13 EU member states: AT = Austria; CZ = Czech Republic; DE = Germany; DK = Denmark; EN = England and Wales; ES = Spain; FR = France ; HU = Hungary ; IE = Ireland; NL = Netherlands; PL = Poland; SC = Scotland; and SE = Sweden. The x-axis is a four-dimensional “degree of participation” index, described in Section 3 and the Supplementary Material. The y-axis is not to be read as a continuous scale, and no distinction is to be made between the position of member states within a given stage or band on the y-axis (arrows have been spaced for presentation and ease of interpretation only). Water 2016,8, 156 9 of 22 Water 2016, 8, 156 9 of 22 Figure 2. Dendrogram clustering 13 member states on WFD-related governance change. Agglomerative clustering, using nine previously described variables measured for two points in time (see Section 3 and Supplementary Material), Gower’s general dissimilarity coefficient, and Ward’s method of agglomeration. 4.1. River Basin Management and Participation Preand Post-WFD in 13 EU Member States Figure 1 maps institutional shifts in 13 EU member states relating to river basin management planning and public and stakeholder participation. As outlined above, the values for each country represent an index derived from the single factors employed to characterize participation and river basin management in this study. It is important to note that the y axis shows four distinct and qualitatively different fields, which correspond to different stages of institutionalization of river basin management: (a) no river basin planning—water resources are managed according to political-territorial boundaries; (b) river basin unit—river basins are delimited as discrete management units, in accordance with the Directive; (c) operational planning—institutions and organizations for river basin management are established at the river basin level; and (d) legal responsibilities—river basin-level institutions have a legal mandate or formal authority to govern and manage within RBDs. The x-axis is a four-dimensional “degree of participation” index, as described in Section 3. Figure 1 shows, first, that there is a basic tendency for member states to come into compliance with the procedural and institutional requirements of the Directive. All countries that did not employ river basin-scale planning have implemented this—albeit mostly to the legal minimum required (AT, DE, DK, and SC). Significant reforms have, however, been made in Sweden (SE), which has overhauled its water governance regime in terms of institutionalizing river basin management in line with the WFD. Second, all member states except one have increased the intensity of participation in river basin planning (see Table S3 for additional information). Shifts in this respect have varied, but seem to be slightly less pronounced among countries where river basin management is more entrenched (ES, FR, and NL), although it must be noted that these generally had more participatory approaches to begin with. Other countries, which have experienced more substantial increases in participation, began from relatively low starting positions (AT, CZ, DE, HU, PL, and SC). Ireland (IE) is peculiar in that it has only marginally increased participation in the planning process, despite its relatively low starting point, which is mainly due to the wider reforms in water resource management the country undertook in the late 1990s anticipating the WFD. Denmark (DK) is clearly also unique in our sample, in that it has implemented river basin-scale planning, but curtailed participation. This coincides with broader political shifts in Denmark over the period, which saw a narrowing of the scope for participation by civil society and the wider public in government generally [59]. Figure 2. Dendrogram clustering 13 member states on WFD-related governance change. Agglomerative clustering, using nine previously described variables measured for two points in time (see Section 3 and Supplementary Material), Gower’s general dissimilarity coefficient, and Ward’s method of agglomeration. 4.1. River Basin Management and Participation Preand Post-WFD in 13 EU Member States Figure 1maps institutional shifts in 13 EU member states relating to river basin management planning and public and stakeholder participation. As outlined above, the values for each country represent an index derived from the single factors employed to characterize participation and river basin management in this study. It is important to note that the y axis shows four distinct and qualitatively different fields, which correspond to different stages of institutionalization of river basin management: (a) no river basin planning—water resources are managed according to political-territorial boundaries; (b) river basin unit—river basins are delimited as discrete management units, in accordance with the Directive; (c) operational planning—institutions and organizations for river basin management are established at the river basin level; and (d) legal responsibilities—river basin-level institutions have a legal mandate or formal authority to govern and manage within RBDs. The x-axis is a four-dimensional “degree of participation” index, as described in Section 3. Figure 1shows, first, that there is a basic tendency for member states to come into compliance with the procedural and institutional requirements of the Directive. All countries that did not employ river basin-scale planning have implemented this—albeit mostly to the legal minimum required (AT, DE, DK, and SC). Significant reforms have, however, been made in Sweden (SE), which has overhauled its water governance regime in terms of institutionalizing river basin management in line with the WFD. Second, all member states except one have increased the intensity of participation in river basin planning (see Table S3 for additional information). Shifts in this respect have varied, but seem to be slightly less pronounced among countries where river basin management is more entrenched (ES, FR, and NL), although it must be noted that these generally had more participatory approaches to begin with. Other countries, which have experienced more substantial increases in participation, began from relatively low starting positions (AT, CZ, DE, HU, PL, and SC). Ireland (IE) is peculiar in that it has only marginally increased participation in the planning process, despite its relatively low starting point, which is mainly due to the wider reforms in water resource management the country undertook in the late 1990s anticipating the WFD. Denmark (DK) is clearly also unique in our sample, in that it has implemented river basin-scale planning, but curtailed participation. This coincides with broader political shifts in Denmark over the period, which saw a narrowing of the scope for participation by civil society and the wider public in government generally [59]. Water 2016,8, 156 16 of 22 integrated river basin management are appropriate or potentially effective approaches for sustainable water resources management, but these remain crucial questions. How, and under what conditions such approaches can succeed in delivering good water status as well as other social and ecological gains, will require further empirical research and in-depth case studies of the kind we have drawn upon for this comparative analysis. Research should closely examine the functioning, legitimacy and actual effectiveness of the new institutions and procedures that have come into being as a result of the WFD. The cyclical nature of WFD implementation brings the opportunity for ongoing observational case study research and attention to processes of adaptation and learning in European water governance. Insofar as WFD implementation is “learning by doing” [ 81 ] (p. 233), research should continue to examine the experiences and trajectories of particular member states and river basin districts with a view to drawing lessons from progress and innovations in institutional adaptation for river basin management and participatory planning over future planning cycles. Further comparative research should both help track progress at the European level with respect to the implementation of the WFD, and provide potentially useful insights that might benefit “horizontal” governance learning across the EU member states. Supplementary Materials: The following are available online at www.mdpi.com/2073-4441/8/4/156/s1, Table S1: Variable descriptions; Table S2: Raw and aggregate data of public participation and river basin management in 13 EU member states for t0 and t1; Table S3: Public Participation in 13 EU member states under the WFD; Text S1: Method of aggregation for indices used; Text S2: Literature drawn on in coding: European water resources management before and after EU Water Framework Directive implementation. Acknowledgments: Parts of this research were funded by the German Research Foundation grant no. NE 1207/2-1 to J.N. (project GoScaLE), and by the European Research Council Starting Grant no. 263859 to J.N. (project EDGE). We thank Lena Elmgren, Insa Krempin, and Blandine Boeuf for research assistance. Author Contributions: This research was conceived and designed by Jens Newig and Nicolas Jager.; the analysis was carried out mainly by Nicolas Jager; Edward Challies, Elisa Kochskämper and Nicolas Jager researched and wrote the paper. All other co-authors contributed material and verified the results. All authors were involved in the finalization of the submitted manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript. Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest. Abbreviations The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript: AT Austria CIS Common Implementation Strategy CZ Czech Republic DE Germany DK Denmark EN England and Wales ES Spain EU European Union FR France HU Hungary IE Ireland LAWA Länderarbeitsgemeinschaft Wasser, federal states working group for water resource management NGO Non-governmental organization NL The Netherlands PL Poland PoM Program of Measures RBD River Basin District RBMP River Basin Management Plan SC Scotland SDAGE Schéma directeur d’aménagement et de gestion des eaux, Water Management and Development Scheme SE Sweden WFD Water Framework Directive Water 2016,8, 156 17 of 22 Appendix A Table A1. Institutional Arrangements for Water Resources Management and Participation before (t0) and after (t1) the WFD in Four Member States. Water Resource Management Germany Sweden Poland France t0 t1 t0 t1 t0 t1 t0 t1 Planning Unit Administrative boundaries River Basin Districts Administrative boundaries River Basin Districts River basin level River Basin Districts River basin level River Basin Districts Responsible Actors Shared responsibility between federal and state (Länder) level: Ministry of Environment and 16 Länder Shared responsibility between federal and state (Länder) level: Ministry of Environment and 16 Länder Central state level: through regulatory authority (Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management) River basin level: Water Authorities Central state: Ministry of Environment Central state and River basin level: National Water Management Authority (Ministry of Environment), Regional River Management Boards Central state: Ministry of Environment Central state and regional level: Ministry of Environment and its regional offices/river basin coordinators (Préfet coordonnateur de basin) Planning Competences Länder level: State Ministries of Environment, District Governments Länder level: State Ministries of Environment, District Governments Local level: Municipalities River basin level: Board of Governors of the Water Authorities River basin level: Regional Water Management Boards Central state and River basin level: National Water Management Authority, Regional Water Management Boards River basin level: Water Agencies, Basin Committees River basin level: Water Agencies, Basin Committees Implementation Competences Local level: Cities, Rural Districts, Municipalities Local level: Cities, Rural Districts, Municipalities Local level: Municipalities Local level: Municipalities Regional and local level: Provinces, Districts, Municipalities Regional and local level: Provinces, Districts and Municipalities Local level: Municipalities Local level: Municipalities, Private contractors Water 2016,8, 156 18 of 22 Table A2. Institutional Arrangements for Participation before (t0) and after (t1) the WFD in Four Member States. Participation Germany Sweden Poland France t0 t1 t0 t1 t0 t1 t0 t1 Status of participatory processes Without formal mandate: Public planning Formal mandate: Advisory bodies Without formal mandate: Joint water quality management organizations Formal mandate: Water Boards, reference groups and Water Councils Without formal mandate: Regional Councils of Water Management Formal mandate: National Council of Water Management, National Water Forum, Regional Councils of Water Management Formal mandate: Basin Committees, Local Water Commissions Formal mandate: Basin Committees, Local Water Commissions, Board of Water Agencies Number of processes One Two: Federal state and mainly sub-basin/local level One Three: River basin and subbasin level One Three: National and river basin district level Two Three: River basin and sub-basin level Access Limited By invitation (except in two Länder with open access) Limited Open Limited By invitation (self-selection structures exist) Wide access Wide access (election of participants) Representation Not balanced Certain balance Not balanced Highly balanced Not balanced Certain balance Certain balance Certain balance Level of Participation Information and some consultation Consultation Information Involvement Information Consultation Collaboration Collaboration Water 2016,8, 156 19 of 22 References 1. Grimeaud, D. Reforming EU water law: Towards sustainability? Eur. Environ. Law Rev. 2001 ,10, 41–51. [CrossRef] 2. Kallis, G.; Nijkamp, P. Evolution of EU water policy: A critical assessment and a hopeful perspective. Z. Umweltpolit. Umweltr. 2000,23, 301–335. 3. Knill, C.; Lenschow, A. Implementing EU Environmental Policy: New Directions and Old Problems; Manchester University Press: Manchester, UK, 2000. 4. European Commission. The Water Framework Directive: Tap into It!; Office for Official Publications of the European Communities: Luxembourg City, Luxembourg, 2002. 5. Blöch, H. The European Union Water Framework Directive: Taking European water policy into the next millennium. Water Sci. Technol. 1999,40, 67–71. [CrossRef] 6. Kaika, M. The Water Framework Directive: A new directive for a changing social, political and economic European framework. Eur. Plan. Stud. 2003,11, 299–316. [CrossRef] 7. Newig, J.; Koontz, T.M. Multi-level governance, policy implementation and participation: The EU ' s mandated participatory planning approach to implementing environmental policy. J. Eur. Public Policy 2014 ,21, 248–267. [CrossRef] 8. Jager, N.W. Transboundary cooperation in European water governance: A set-theoretic analysis of international river basins. Environ. Policy Gov. 2016, in press. 9. Andersson, I.; Petersson, M.; Jarsjö, J. Impact of the European Water Framework Directive on local-level water management: Case study Oxunda catchment, Sweden. Land Use Policy 2012,29, 73–82. 10. Junier, S.; Borowski, I.; Bouleau, G.; Interwies, E.; Mostert, E. Implementing the Water Framework Directive: Lessons for the second planning cycle. In The Water Framework Directive: Action Programmes and Adaptation to Climate Change; Quevauviller, P., Borchers, U., Thompson, K.C., Simonart, T., Eds.; RSC Publishing: Cambridge, UK, 2011; pp. 80–96. 11. Moss, T. Spatial fit, from panacea to practice: Implementing the EU Water Framework Directive. Ecol. Soc. 2012,17, 1–12. [CrossRef] 12. Jaspers, F.; Gupta, J. Global water governance and river basin organisations. In The politics of River Basin Organisations: Coalitions, Institutional Design Choices and Consequences; Huitema, D., Meijerink, S., Eds.; Edward Elgar: Cheltenham, UK, 2015; pp. 38–66. 13. Molle, F. River-basin planning and management: The social life of a concept. Geoforum 2009 ,40, 484–494. [CrossRef] 14. Folke, C.; Pritchard, L.J.; Berkes, F.; Colding, J.; Svedin, U. The problem of fit between ecosystems and institutions: Ten years later. Ecol. Soc. 2007,12, 1–30. 15. GWP-TAC. Integrated Water Resources Management: TAC Background Papers No. 4.; Global Water Partnership: Stockholm, Sweden, 2000. 16. Griffiths, M. The European Water Framework Directive: An Approach to Integrated River Basin Management; European Water Management Online, European Water Association: Hennef, Germany, 2002. 17. Page, B.; Kaika, M. The EU Water Framework Directive: Part 2—Policy innovation and the shifting choreography of governance. Eur. Environ. 2003,13, 328–343. [CrossRef] 18. Meinzen-Dick, R. Beyond panaceas in water institutions. PNAS 2007 ,104, 15200–15205. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 19. Ingram, H. Beyond universal remedies for good water governance. In Water for Food in a Changing World; Garrido, A., Ingram, H., Eds.; Routledge: London, UK, 2011; pp. 241–261. 20. Cohen, A.; McCarthy, J. Reviewing rescaling: Strengthening the case for environmental considerations. Prog. Hum. Geogr. 2015,39, 3–25. [CrossRef] 21. Medema, W.; McIntosh, B.S.; Jeffrey, P.J. From premise to practice: A critical assessment of integrated water resources management and adaptive management approaches in the water sector. Ecol. Soc. 2008,13, 1–18. 22. Graefe, O. River basins as new environmental regions? The depolitization of water management. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2011,14, 24–27. [CrossRef] 23. Cohen, A.; Davidson, S. The watershed approach: Challenges, antecedents, and the transition from technical tool to governance unit. Water Altern. 2011,4, 1–14. 24. Norman, E.S.; Cook, C.; Cohen, A. Negotiating Water Governance: Why the Politics of Scale Matter; Ashgate: Farnham, UK, 2015. Water 2016,8, 156 20 of 22 25. Schlager, E.; Blomquist, W. Embracing Watershed Politics; University Press of Colorado: Boulder, CO, USA, 2008. 26. Molle, F. Nirvana concepts, narratives and policy models: Insights from the water sector. Water Altern. 2008,1, 131–156. 27. Ker Rault, P.A.; Jeffrey, P.J. Deconstructing public participation in the Water Framework Directive: Implementation and compliance with the letter or with the spirit of the law? Water Environ. J. 2008 ,22, 241–249. [CrossRef] 28. Wright, S.A.L.; Fritsch, O. Operationalising active involvement in the EU Water Framework Directive: Why, when and how? Ecol. Econ. 2011,70, 2268–2274. [CrossRef] 29. European Commission. Common Implementation Strategy for the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC). Guidance Document No.8 on Public Participation in Relation to the Water Framework Directive; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2003. 30. Brouwer, S.; Rayner, T.; Huitema, D. Mainstreaming climate policy: The case of climate adaptation and the implementation of EU water policy. Environ. Plan. C 2013,31, 134–153. [CrossRef] 31. Watson, N.; Deeming, H.; Treffny, R. Beyond bureaucracy? Assessing institutional change in the governance of water in England. Water Altern. 2009,2, 448–460. 32. Beierle, T.C.; Cayford, J. Democracy in Practice: Public Participation in Environmental Decisions; Resources for the Future: Washington, DC, USA, 2002; p. 147. 33. Newig, J. Does public participation in environmental decisions lead to improved environmental quality? Towards an analytical framework. Commun. Cooperation Particip. 2007,1, 51–71. 34. Reed, M.S. Stakeholder participation for environmental management: A literature review. Biol. Conserv. 2008,114, 2417–2431. [CrossRef] 35. Fung, A. Varieties of participation in complex governance. Public Adm. Rev. 2006,66, 66–75. [CrossRef] 36. Newig, J.; Kvarda, E. Participation in environmental governance: Legitimate and effective? In Environmental Governance: The Challenge of Legitimacy and Effectiveness; Hogl, K., Kvarda, E., Nordbeck, R., Pregernig, M., Eds.; Edward Elgar: Cheltenham, UK, 2012; pp. 29–45. 37. Newig, J.; Challies, E.; Jager, N.W.; Kochskämper, E.; Adzersen, A. How and under what circumstances does collaborative and participatory governance lead to better (or worse) environmental outcomes? A causal framework for analysis. J. Public Adm. Res. Theory 2016. in review. 38. Baird, J.; Plummer, R.; Haug, C.; Huitema, D. Learning effects of interactive decision-making processes for climate change adaptation. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2014,27, 51–63. [CrossRef] 39. Carr, G.; Blöschl, G.; Loucks, D.P. Evaluating participation in water resource management: A review. Water Resour. Res. 2012,48, W11401. [CrossRef] 40. Smith, M.P. Finding common ground: How advocacy coalitions succeed in protecting environmental flows. J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 2009,45, 1100–1115. [CrossRef] 41. Bulkeley, H.; Mol, A.P.J. Participation and environmental governance: Consensus, ambivalence and debate. Environ. Values 2003,12, 143–154. [CrossRef] 42. Newig, J.; Fritsch, O. Environmental governance: Participatory, multi-level—And effective? Environ. Policy Gov. 2009,19, 197–214. [CrossRef] 43. Cabezas, F. The European Water Framework Directive: A framework? Int. J. Water Resour. Dev. 2012 ,28, 19–26. [CrossRef] 44. Fritsch, O.; Benson, D. Integrating the principles of integrated water resources management? River basin planning in England and Wales. Int. J. Water Gov. 2013,1, 265–284. [CrossRef] 45. Woods, D. Stakeholder involvement and public participation: A critique of Water Framework Directive arrangements in the United Kingdom. Water Environ. J. 2008,22, 258–264. [CrossRef] 46. European Commission. Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the Implementation of the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC): River Basin Management Plans; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2012. 47. European Commission. Commission Staff Working Document. European Overview Accompanying the Document “Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the Implementation of the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC): River Basin Management Plans”; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2012. Water 2016,8, 156 21 of 22 48. Kampa, E.; Dworak, T.; Grandmougin, B.; Cheung-Ah-Seung, E.; Mattheiß, V.; Strosser, P.; Campling, P. Active involvement in river basin management: Plunge into the debate. In Proceedings of the 2nd European Water Conference, Brussels, Belgium, 2–3 April 2009. 49. Scheuer, S.; Roullard, J. Letting the Public Have Their Say on Water Management: A Snapshot Analysis of Member States ' Consultations on Water Management Issues and Measures within the Water Framework Directive; WWF, EEB: Brussels, Belgium, 2008. 50. Hedin, S.; Dubois, A.; Ikonen, R.; Lindblom, P.; Nilsson, S.; Tynkkynen, V.-P.; Viehauser, M.; Leisk, Ü.; Veidemane, K. The Water Framework Directive in the Baltic Sea Region Countries: Vertical Implementation, Horizontal Integration and Transnational Cooperation; Nordregio, Nordic Centre for Spatial Development: Stockholm, Sweden, 2007. 51. Nielsen, H.Ø.; Frederiksen, P.; Saarikoski, H.; Rytkönen, A.-M.; Pedersen, A.B. How different institutional arrangements promote integrated river basin management: Evidence from the Baltic Sea region. Land Use Policy 2013,30, 437–445. [CrossRef] 52. Keessen, A.M.; van Kempen, J.J.H.; van Rijswick, M.; Robbe, J.; Backes, C.W. European river basin districts: Are they swimming in the same implementation pool? J. Environ. Law 2010,22, 197–221. [CrossRef] 53. Uitenboogaart, Y.; van Kempen, J.J.H.; Wiering, M.A.; von Rijswick, H.F.M.W. Dealing with Complexity and Policy Discretion: A Comparison of the Implementation Process of the European Water Framework Directive in Five Member States; Sdu Uitgevers: Den Haag, The Netherlands, 2009. 54. Bourblanc, M.; Crabbé, A.; Liefferink, D.; Wiering, M. The marathon of the hare and the tortoise: Implementing the EU Water Framework Directive. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2012 ,56, 1449–1467. [CrossRef] 55. Hernández-Mora, N.; Del Moral, L. Evaluation of the Water Framework Directive Implementation Process in Europe: Project Report, Sustainable Water Action Network. Avaliable online: http://swanproject.webhost. uits.arizona.edu/sites/default/files/Deliverable_3_2.pdf (accessed on 16 April 2016). 56. Hüesker, F.; Moss, T. The politics of multi-scalar action in river basin management: Implementing the EU Water Framework Directive (WFD). Land Use Policy 2015,42, 38–47. [CrossRef] 57. Kowalczak, P.; Matczak, P.; Slavikova, L. Institutional evolution in water management in the Czech Republic and Poland. Int. J. Water Gov. 2013,1, 307–322. [CrossRef] 58. Liefferink, D.; Wiering, M.; Uitenboogaart, Y. The EU Water Framework Directive: A multi-dimensional analysis of implementation and domestic impact. Land Use Policy 2011,28, 712–722. [CrossRef] 59. Christensen, P.; Kørnøv, L.; Nielsen, E.H. Between governance and government: Danish EIA in uncharted waters. J. Environ. Assess. Policy Manag. 2012,14, 1–18. [CrossRef] 60. Bouleau, G.; Barone, S.; Maurel, P.; Richard, A.; Abrami, G.; Cernesson, F.; Richard, S. I-FIVE: Innovative Instruments and Institutions in Implementing the Water Framework Directive: French Case Study Report: Implementing the WFD on the Thau Basin. Research Report 2.3.; Office International de l’Eau: Limoges, France, 2009. 61. Notte, O.; Keessen, A.M. Quick Scan: WFD Implementation in France: Project Report; Centre for Environmental Law and Policy, Utrecht University: Utrecht, The Netherlands, 2009. 62. Allain, S. Social participation in French water management: Contributions to river basin governance and new challenges. In Social Participation in Water Governance and Management: Critical and Global Perspectives; Berry, K., Mollard, E., Eds.; Earthscan: London, UK, 2010; pp. 95–115. 63. Blomquist, W.; Tonderski, A.; Dinar, A. Institutional and Policy Analysis of River Basin Management: The Warta River Basin, Poland; Policy Research Working Paper 3528; World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2005. 64. Tonderski, A. Warta River Basin Case Study Poland; World Bank Background Paper; World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2004. 65. European Commission. Commission Staff Working Document. Member State: Poland. Accompanying the Document “Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the Implementation of the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC): River Basin Management Plans”; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2012. 66. Hu´nka, A.; Palarie, T. WFD, institutional infrastructure, decision-making and stakeholders’ participation in water risk management in Poland and Romania. In Proceedings of the EASY-ECO Vienna Conference, Vienna, Austria, 11–14 March 2008. Water 2016,8, 156 22 of 22 67. Hedelin, B. Potential implications of the EU Water Framework Directive in Sweden. A comparison of the Swedish municipalities’ current water planning regime with the requirements of the EU’s new Water Framework Directive. Eur. J. Spat. Dev. 2005,14, 1–17. 68. Hammer, M.; Balfors, B.; Mörtberg, U.; Petersson, M.; Quin, A. Governance of water resources in the phase of change: A case study of the implementation of the EU Water Framework Directive in Sweden. Ambio 2011,40, 210–220. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 69. Lundqvist, L.J. Integrating Swedish water resource management: A multi-level governance trilemma. Local Environ. 2004,9, 413–424. [CrossRef] 70. Hedelin, B.; Lindh, M. Implementing the EU Water Framework Directive: Prospects for sustainable water planning in Sweden. Eur. Environ. 2008,18, 327–344. [CrossRef] 71. European Commission. Commission Staff Working Document. Member State: Sweden. Accompanying the Document “Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the Implementation of the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC): River Basin Management Plans”; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2012. 72. Uitenboogaart, Y. Quick Scan: WFD Implementation in Germany. Project Report; Centre for Environmental Law and Policy, Utrecht University: Utrecht, The Netherlands, 2009. 73. Länderarbeitsgemeinschaft Wasser. German Guidance Document for the Implementation of the EC Water Framework Directive. Updated versIon: 30.04.2003; Länderarbeitsgemeinschaft Wasser (LAWA): Stuttgart, Germany, 2003. 74. Muro, M. Zur Wirksamkeit der Öffentlichkeitsbeteiligung von wasserwirtschaftlichen Planungen in Deutschland. Master’s Thesis, Technische Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany, 2002. 75. Albrecht, J.; Schmidt, C.; Stratmann, L.; Hofmann, M.; Posselt, S.; Wendler, W.; Roßner, D.; Wachs, A. Die Wasserrahmenrichtlinie aus Sicht des Naturschutzes: Analyse der Bewirtschaftungsplanung 2009; Bundesamt für Naturschutz: Bonn, Germany, 2012. 76. Leinweber, T. Umsetzung der EU-Wasserrahmenrichtlinie in Deutschland: Bestandsaufnahme, Monitoring, Öffentlichkeitsbeteiligung und Wichtige Bewirtschaftungsfragen; Sachverständigenrat für Umweltfragen: Berlin, Germany, 2008. 77. European Commission. Commission Staff Working Document. Report on the Progress in Implementation of the Water Framework Directive Programmes of Measures. Accompanying the Document “The Water Framework Directive and the Floods Directive: Actions towards the “Good Status” of EU water and to reduce flood risks”; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2015. 78. Theesfeld, I.; Schleyer, C. Germany’s light version of integrated water resources management. Environ. Policy Gov. 2013,23, 130–144. [CrossRef] 79. Waylen, K.A.; Blackstock, K.L.; Holstead, K.L. How does legacy create sticking points for environmental management? Insights from challenges to implementation of the ecosystem approach. Ecol. Soc. 2015 ,20, 1–13. [CrossRef] 80. Hooghe, L.; Marks, G. Types of Multi-Level Governance. Eur. Integr. Online Pap. EIoP 2001,5, 11. 81. Wiering, M.A.; van Rijswick, H.F.M.W.; Uitenboogaart, Y. General conclusions. In Dealing with Complexity and Policy Discretion: A Comparison of the Implementation Process of the European Water Framework Directive in Five Member States; Uitenboogaart, Y., Ed.; Sdu Uitgevers: Den Haag, The Netherlands, 2009; pp. 221–234. © 2016 by the authors; licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).