Since its enactment in 2000 the Water Framework Directive (WFD) has attracted wide scholarly attention (Boeuf, Fritsch 2016, Newig et al. 2016). Water governance is one of the most widely discussed topics in transboundary environmental governance literature with studies on river basin governance taking centre stage (e.g. Dore et al. 2012, Jager 2016). This is related to the fact that the EU member states were required to produce water management plans for the first implementation cycle of 2009–2015. This obligation has been regarded as a chance to improve the quality of transboundary water environment in Europe, but also has been the WFDs’ greatest challenge. Studies have been analysing the aspects related to upstream/downstream management, conflicts and governance processes as well as on the workings of international policy frameworks for transboundary river basins (e.g. Jager 2016, Kochskämper et al. 2016). Yet, despite that many of the rivers in these cases present at the same time a lengthy national border, most studies lack to integrate the bordering processes that effect managing entities on either side of the bordering river (see Martinez 1994, van Houtum 2000, Newman 2006).
Transboundary water governance and river basin governance studies are predominantly framed within a multi-level/stakeholder framework emphasizing the
In this paper the focus is on these existing gaps and to scrutinize a variety of bordering effects on transboundary water governance by the example of two international river basin districts: The International Oder River Basin District (IORBD) and the International Torne River Basin District (ITRBD) (Fig. 1). The aim of the study was to scrutinize transboundary water governance processes and to highlight the socio-spatial differences of bordering processes that guide diverse WFD implementation practices based on the following questions:
Which border related processes shaped WFD implementation during the first cycle of planning? What kind of international river basin management is in place after the first implementation cycle of 2009 and 2015? What has been the effect of bordering processes for harmonization of water management systems in Europe?
The IORBD and ITRBD are located in the northern, respectively the southern parts of the Baltic Sea Basin (Fig. 1, Table 1). Each cover the territory of three countries – the IORBD: Poland, Germany and Czech Republic, the ITRBD: Sweden, Finland and Norway.
Characteristics of the International Oder River Basin District (IORBD) and the International Torne River Basin District (ITRBD) according to Elfvendahl et al. 2006, ICOP 2009, 2014, Öhman et al. 2016.
Characteristics | International Odra River Basin District | International Torne River Basin District |
---|---|---|
Length of the river | 841 km | 520 km |
The area | 124 115 km2 | 40 000 km2 |
The area / percentage of the area in the different countries | 107169 km2 / 86.4% Poland | 25 000 km2 / 64% Sweden |
Annual runoff to the Baltic sea | 18.5 billion m3 | about 17800 million m3 (strong annual variation) |
The human population inhabiting the river basin area | About 16.7 million in 2005: | About 80000 in 2012: |
Ecoregions | The Carpathians | Central plain |
The main land use | Agricultural land (62%) | Boreal forests (58%) |
Sources of contamination | Historical and ongoing mining industry, treated waste water from the main towns, agriculture | Treated waste water from the main towns, settlements and industry, such as historical and ongoing mining industry, forestry practices, peat mining, fish farming, agriculture |
Significant natural resources | Natura 2000 area | Naturally breeding salmon population |
The study is framed as a document-based qualitative thematic analysis on the implementation of the WFD between 2009 and 2015 and on policy documents from 5 EU countries: Finland, Sweden, Poland, Germany and Czech Republic for cross-border water management. Additional data was acquired through participatory observation and through discussions in an international conference on Implementing the Water Framework Directive and Flood Directive in the IORBD, in November 2015 in Wrocław, and the International conference on the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) Water Convention, in May 2017 in Haparanda at the secretariat of Finnish-Swedish Transboundary River Commission. Based on the analysed data the study compares 3 attributes of the two RBDs: the biophysical characteristics and their related definitions; the cross-border cooperation processes within the two river basins (before and after 2000) and the experiences deriving from the first cycle of water management plans (2009–2015) in relation to the implementation of WFD.
Recognizing the Oder River as a main source of pollution for the Baltic Sea was one of the most important factors that initiated the development of cross-border cooperation in the field of water management and protection of its basin (Meyer 2002). The first Agreement on bilateral cooperation between Poland and Germany in the area of cross-border waters of the Oder and Lusitian Neisse was signed on 19 May 1992 and came into effect on 26 September 1996 (Umowa 1992). Its main aim was to guarantee the rational development and protection of the water and the improvement of its quality, as well as maintaining the ecosystems and, if needed, their restitution. Simultaneously, trilateral activities were undertaken between Poland, Germany and the Czech Republic. In 1996 these countries signed the Agreement on the International Commission for the Protection of the Oder River against Pollution (ICOP) (Umowa 1996). The activity of the ICOP was both conceptual and related to performance and aimed, among others, at preventing and permanent reduction of contamination of the Oder and the Baltic Sea with harmful substances, as well as at achieving water ecosystems, which would be as similar as possible to the natural ones. Moreover, a priority was also to enable obtaining drinking water from the infiltration bank intakes, the agricultural use of water and deposits, as well as preventing and reducing damage caused by flooding.
In the International Torne River Basin District the cross-border cooperation was launched to protect important natural resources in both countries, particularly in relation to the problems deriving from hydraulic engineering (e.g. hydro power) on local fish stock (Nilsson, Langaas 2006). First bilateral treaty between Finland and Sweden was signed in 1971 and was mainly regulating aspects related to hydraulic engineering and fishing activities in the Torne River (ibid.). Besides those initial agreements cooperation in cross-border water management issues has been increasing since the 1990’s. First remarkable cooperation project was carried out to evaluate the status of the water quality in the Torne River basin in the end of 1990’s. The project received funding from the Environmental Centre of Lapland (nowadays the Centre for Economic Development, Transport and Environment of Lapland), the County Administrative Board of Norrbotten and the Finnish-Swedish Transboundary River Commission (Puro-Tahvanainen et al. 2001). Throughout this period cooperation can be largely described as single problem oriented cooperation, rather than transnational policy driven common management targeted as is the aim under the present WFD.
The enactment of the WFD begins a new phase for the development of cross-border cooperation in both case study areas. EU policy with the WFD treats water management as cyclical process. In 2000 the process of WFD transposition to the EU member states began, and numerous institutions from the countries whose territories comprise the IORBD and the ITRBD got involved (see Table 2). Following, since 2002 the ICOP and the ITRBD, framed within the WFD as a mobile EU policy, are institutionally required to coordinate activities related to tightening the cross-border cooperation directed to managing and identifying problems of the so called water bodies. This includes evaluation of the water bodies, their use, and assessment of their current status, the identification of significant current and future anthropogenic pressures and economic analyses of water uses. Besides, incorporation of economic instruments and the requirement for public participation needs to be included (Page, Kaika 2003). In addition to their responsibilities framed by the WFD documents, the implementation of the same is dependent on a variety of existing policies and practices that differ between the countries (Keskitalo, Petterson 2012). The WFD implementation phase of 2009–2015 therefore provides us with an experimental setting to analyse how the policy was translated differently and what where the reasons for these varying approaches (e.g. Albrecht et al. 2017).
Stakeholders on the area of the International Oder River Basin District (IORBD) and the International Torne River Basin District (ITRBD).
River Basin District | Country | Institution |
---|---|---|
International Oder River Basin District | Germany | German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety in Bonn |
Ministry for Environment, Health and Consumer Protection Brandenburg | ||
Ministry of Agriculture, the Environment and Consumer Protection Mecklenburg-Vorpommern | ||
Saxon State Ministry for the Environment and Agriculture | ||
State Office of Environment, Health and Consumer Protection Brandenburg | ||
National Office for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Geology | ||
State Bureau for Agriculture and Environment | ||
Saxon State Office for Environment, Agriculture and Geology | ||
Poland | President of the National Water Management Authority | |
Regional Water Management Board: in Gliwice, Wroclaw, Poznan, Szczecin | ||
Czech Republic | Ministry of the Environment | |
Ministry of Agriculture | ||
T. G. Masaryk Water Research Institute | ||
Czech Environment Inspection | ||
Agency for Nature Conservation and Landscape Protection of the Czech Republic | ||
Czech Hydrometeorological Institute | ||
Labe River Basin Authority, state enterprise | ||
Ohře River Basin Authority, state enterprise | ||
Odra River Basin Authority state enterprise | ||
International Torne River Basin District | Finland | Finnish-Swedish Transboundary River Commission |
Ministry of the Environment | ||
Centre for Economic Development, Transport and Environment of Lapland | ||
Water Management District of Tornionjoki | ||
Natural Resources Institute, Finland | ||
Finnish Environment Institute | ||
Municipalities | ||
Sweden | Ministry of Environment and Energy | |
County Administrative Board of Norrbotten | ||
Water authority of Bottenvik | ||
Swedish agency for marine and water management | ||
Geological survey of Sweden | ||
Municipalities |
Following the WFD establishment, implementation in Poland, Germany and the Czech Republic was guided by varying translations of the policy and its requirements. One reason for varying implementation are the constitutional statuses within the countries as cross-border water management requires legal involvement of both regional and national institutions with varying responsibilities. The cooperation in the field of water management between relevant state offices and institutions is challenging and even more so if activities are jointly managed among different countries (Green et al. 2013). Additionally, the scope of duties and legal powers by relevant offices and institutions on the national level differ significantly which hinders to find a common ground for communication and exchange of experience (Knippschild 2011, Sarmiento-Mirwaldt, Roman-Kamphaus 2013, Ibragimow, Albrecht 2015).
One of the first and most important tasks in the IORBD was designating the cross-border water bodies, and, if necessary, defining them as artificial or heavily modified. A common agreement was required to assure the uniform treatment and classification of cross-border water bodies. This question is extremely important as it is the basis for defining the appropriate range of ecological monitoring, comprising the assessment of ecological conditions or ecological potential. In 2010, when the first RBMP in the IORBD was being developed, a common agreement was not achieved, and cross-border water bodies were characterized nationally. Still by 2014 while updating the first RBMP a common agreement on international characteristics was not reached for all cross-border water bodies (ICOP 2014).
Another crucial question concerns the determination of the chemical condition of cross-border water bodies, which is assessed uniformly on the basis of endurance, bioaccumulation and toxicity of substances dangerous for the environment. The term
The analyses and studies conducted in the IORBD in the recent years, with special consideration of cross-border water bodies, allowed for the identification of crucial extra-regional problems related to water management (ICOP 2009). The first water management plan (ICOP 2009), as well as its update (ICOP 2014), stressed that high contamination of water with priority substances is one of the main extra-regional problems of water management. What is more, it was stressed that in the second cycle of water management planning (2016–2021), this problem disables the assessment of good condition of surface water, and currently make it impossible to reach the water management aims. In this case, Art. 4 of the WFD (EC 2000) is applied, providing the possibility to prolong implementation of planned environmental aims if justification is provided. For the border length of the Oder River, such justification is the lack of technical possibilities necessary for the improvement of water condition quality, disproportionally high expenditures and natural conditions which restrict the improvement of water conditions.
The Water Management Plan for the IORBD involves basic and complementary actions, which should improve surface water quality in its area (ICOP 2014). They are defined on the basis of national studies and compared among the countries. For example, in Poland activities comprise the construction of new sewage treatment plants, reconstruction of existing plants, and remediating contamination from old landfills or post-industrial sites. In Germany, the contamination with harmful substances shall be gradually reduced by recultivating old landfills and by remediating other identified sources of pollution. In the Czech part of the IORBD, projects of construction and reconstruction of sewage systems, building, increasing effectiveness and modernizing the sewage treatment plants are planned. The above mentioned activities are listed in specific categories and presented in tables while the lack of uniform attitude, and the differing aspects taken into consideration during the classification processes of specific undertakings in each of the above mentioned countries are characteristic for the restraining properties towards a joint policy translation. Thus, possible resulting in a mismatch between certain expectations and actual implementation within IORBD authorities and sites.
Contrary to the IORBD countries, institutions in Finland and Sweden seem to have few difficulties to find common ground for communication and exchange of experience on water governance as the administrative structures are close to uniform and water quality targets are reached for 81% of water bodies. On the 10th of October 2010 entered into the force the Agreement between Finland and Sweden Concerning Transboundary Rivers, which established the Finnish-Swedish Transboundary River Commission (FSTRC) with a legal capacity in both countries. The FSTRC aims at advancing the co-operation between the stakeholders and different sectors in the ITRBD and defines exchange of information between the regional authorities as one of its main tasks (FSTRC 2014). It distributes information on ongoing water management and fisheries projects in the ITRBD area, comments on environmental permit issues varying from waste water treatment plant, wind power plant, import terminal to peat extraction and dredging (FSTRC 2011–2015). Further, the FSTRC is responsible to organize events and since 2011, for the Torne valley water parliament, a forum for co-operation on the water environment. Founded in 2007, the water parliament is a discussion forum between Finland and Sweden. Sessions are bi-annual and are open to the public (Öhman et al 2016).
Fisheries issues are frequently on the commission agenda, as salmon fishing is an important part of Torne river basin districts livelihood and culture. Salmon stocks have been low at the end of 1990’s but the action taken throughout the 2000’s to reduce water pollution at the inner coastal areas of the Baltic sea have proven successful to restore the population. During the summers 2014 and 2016 the number of about 100 000 salmon were returning to the Torne for breeding (Palm et al 2018). Despite the increase in the number of salmons that are returning to the Torne River for breeding, there are still threats to the salmon that may be caused by pollution or diseases. Thus, conservation of the salmon and trout is an area where the co-operation needs to be strengthened and the Swedish water authority, Vattenmyndigheten Bottenvik, suggested the development of a salmon conservation strategy for the Torne (FSTRC 2015). Nowadays about 50% of the salmon catch in the Baltic Sea Drainage Basin is from the Torne (Havs och vattenmyndigheter 2016). The FSTRC worked to harmonize fishing practices at the Torne River and the Bothian Bay, as Sweden has been about one week ahead of Finland for the start of Salmon fishing season on the Baltic Sea coastline (FSTRC 2015). This has caused conflicts among local fishermen in the Torne River basin district and has been contested due to the principle of equal treatment and non-discrimination, both guiding principles of the European Union. In Sweden salmon belongs to the
Main co-operation between Finland and Sweden has been actualized through Interreg Nord projects: The Torne River International Watershed, TRIWA I, II and III from 2005 to 2013. The cooperation between Finnish and Swedish authorities deepened in 2005–2006 when the TRIWA I Interreg IIIA project was carried out. The project was comparing Finnish and Swedish typologies and developing a harmonized TRIWA typology of ecoregions (mountain, inland and coastal regions), size classes of lakes (3 classes) and river catchments (3 classes) and classification of the humic content of the water (clear/brown) (Alanne et al, 2005; Elfvendahl et al. 2006). The work to deepen the cross-border cooperation of the Torne River watershed continued with TRIWA II Interreg IIIA project in 2006–2008 that aimed at harmonized management of the Torne River watershed. The project compared Finnish and Swedish water legislation and collected best practices for water management from both countries. Additionally, a continuation to the previous cooperation projects TRIWA III Interreg IVA North project (programme period 2007–2013) assessed the impact of forestry practices and the need for restoration of the rivers in the Torne River basin district. Forestry affects surface waters in the North of Fennoscandia, especially through ditching of peatlands. Same methods were applied in both countries such as analysing maps, field visits and cost-effectiveness analysis for restoration. The weakness of this approach was that other influence from human activity was not taken into account. Results of the TRIWA III showed that water systems were close to natural state in Sweden whereby in Finland influence of the forestry practices were clearly visible (Alanne et al. 2014). Despite this harmonizing efforts and existing practices classifications and nationally based monitoring activities remain different based on legal requirements to follow national systems.
Study of Jager (2016) connects the economic integration of the regions towards their interest in deepening the cross-border water basin management. As the Torne River basin district is a peripheral region, thus not a main region for economic development and distant to the national economic centres and central administration, despite the long tradition in bilateral ties and strong interaction in variety of areas between Finland and Sweden, the WFD implementation has not yet actualized as a common river basin management plan – only national water management plans and programme of measures (2009) are in place. (Tornionjoen vesienhoitoalue 2009a, b; Vattenmydighet Bottenviken, Länsstyrelsen Norrbotten, 2010a).
In Sweden the Programme of Measures (PoM) identifies the problem areas in the river basin but contains only a very short chapter regarding common transnational measures, most of which are administrative (COM 2012). In the Finnish PoM, the main measures focus on improving the water supply and sewage in the sparsely populated areas, ground water protection, reducing the detriment of floods, reducing the impacts of hydraulic engineering and water system restoration (Tornionjoen vesienhoitoalue, 2009b).
The shortcoming is attributed to organizational differences in the: methodologies, planning timetables and national guidelines (Öhman et al. 2016). Monitoring activities are performed by the regional authorities and water management authorities of each country. Sweden applies the ‘one out – all out’ principle, which means that the overall status is defined according to the weakest quality criteria, whereby Finland uses a combined methodology, where only hydro-morphological factors may reduce the water status (Öhman et al. 2016). In Sweden, the monitoring data and maps are gathered in the internet portal VISS (VattenInformations System Sverige), which functions as an information basis for the co-operation (Vattenmydigheten Bottenviken, Länsstyrelsen Norrbotten, 2010b). Most of the water bodies in ITRBD are under relatively light surveillance since no activities take place that could threat the excellent or good condition of waters. In both regions in the ITRBD, maintaining the same level of nutrition and organic matter load is set as an objective to the water systems that are in good or high condition. However, the water systems that are degraded through silt from forestry practices require restoration. Restoration is also necessary in river beds that were altered for the log floating, a commonly used practice in the past.
Priorities of water management activities and funding focus on differing problem areas as for instance in the IORBD. A draft of an international river basin management plan for the second implementation phase from 2016–2021 has been discussed, although has not materialized to date (FSTRC 2016). This indicates that many obstacles to a harmonized cross-border water management remain.
Although a scalar misfit is often reported in scholarly publications on the WFD implementation (Evers 2016, Hüesker, Moss 2015), other obstacles for reaching the WFD objective of good ecological status and harmonized practices are an important factor. Hence, to understand regional translation and implementation the biophysical characters of the river basin, its socio-economic patters and historical dependencies must be integrated and connected with processes related to transnational policy workings. There is a need for more detailed comparisons that combine the biophysical characters, administrative structures and socio-cultural peculiarities to better understand the governance processes of the river basin management. The analyses, activities and prognoses undertaken during the implementation phase from 2009 and 2015 show mixed results in relation to the aim of improved water quality. In the case of the IORBD, with a special consideration of Polish-German border waters, achieving the environmental aim stipulated in the WFD – that is good condition of water – is highly unlikely. This is related to, among others, the extra-regional problem of water management, which is the contamination of water with priority substances, as well as trace metals. In the case of ITRBD the good condition of water has been reached for most part of the basin, as the river basin is in natural condition in most part of the Swedish side and the scattered loading from forest industry, agriculture, semi-rural and rural settlements and industry is comparable modest.
The study shows that lack of cooperation or rather mismatch between the aims and structures of the regions in the international river basin districts are slowing down or preventing the implementations of measures within the scope of WFD. This can be partly attributed to legislative and institutional constraints which could be linked to what Agnew calls
Border specific socio-cultural barriers that frame institutional collaboration (van Houtumn 2000), restrict the emergence of these necessary actions in the IRBDs. Based on the larger variations of these aspects between Poland in Germany than between Finland and Sweden (see e.g. Nilsson, Langaas 2006) the RBDs are framed by a different level of institutional uniformity. Although river basin management institutions exist, the tradition of managing environmental and water issues through regional administration is still in place in all countries of our comparison. This renders EU’s WFD open to multiple complex regional translation processes based on rationalities in a variety of institutions and consequently result in a variety of policy implementation pathways (Mukhtarov 2014, Albrecht 2017, Albrecht et al. 2017). In Germany the Federal states, in Finland the centres for economic development, transport and environment and in Sweden the County Administrative Boards, in Poland President of the National Water Management Authority and in the Czech Republic Ministry of the Environment are responsible for the river basin districts. Additionally, water management priorities differ among states and even regions, which can result in a lack of resources to jointly implement the monitoring and data gathering requirements, while for instance infrastructure developments with an economic gain (e.g. water route development, hydro power) might be favoured.
Common actions aiming at solving the contamination of water bodies and the necessity to identify main spots and areal sources of pollution, have been undertaken in the Polish-German border area, and the enactment of the WFD has clearly intensified previously undertaken actions. However, when looking at the concerted transboundary management efforts the first years of introducing the Directive in the IORBD and the ITRBD as well as the experiences of the first cycle of water management planning (2009–2015) show that there remain critical aspects in both of the river basin districts. The implementation of particular activities in the field of water management is the duty of offices and institutions of each member country, in whose cases finding a common international platform of communication and exchange of experiences is largely hampered. This is in the IORBD district related to different constitutional statuses of Poland and Germany that have led to different distribution of competences and tasks between their local governmental levels. In the case of the IORBD, this is of special importance. In the case of ITRBD it is less difficult to find common ground as the administrative structures of Finland and Sweden are rather similar, however the Finnish-Swedish border river commission is mainly a platform to exchange information and harmonize practices. A Swedish-Finnish programme of measures was not in place during the first implementation phase from 2009 to 2015, which indicates that there are challenges in harmonizing the practices of member countries. Both international river basin districts contain peripheral characteristics. The international water management based on the transnational characteristic of the IRBDs is linking the distant regions closer to the centres of national and EU decision-making yet, the river and the surrounding communities and the cultures they represent remain part of the daily interactions of problem solving and learning (Kooiman, Bavinck 2005). The harmonization efforts of Salmon fishing practices on the Baltic Sea coast line, which is still part of the ITRBD, demonstrate that cultural practices, such as the importance of getting the Torne River salmon to the midsummer table, in many case more important than the ecological limits.
Another question relates to differences in assumed characteristics, classifications and criteria, conditioned by the binding state methodologies. This is, among others, related to varied characteristics and preferences in management of cross-border water bodies and different state methodologies of assessing the chemical condition of water. The study has highlighted a pressing need to analyse and adjust transnational classification processes in water governance. Thus, it should be acknowledged in water governance that policy instruments of EUs’ WFD, such as classification processes underlie translation processes that are framed not solely on national and regional socio-spatial settings (Clarke et al. 2015, Albrecht et al. 2018) but additionally by the bordering processes of these transboundary environments rather than being a mere matter deriving from biophysical facts or institutional frameworks alone as often portrayed in the debates of national classification systems.