Water Framework Directive

Public participation among the requirements of the WFD relating to the river basin management planning

What is th epublic participation?

Advantages and diadvantages

An international project on the PP in the RBMP

A Hungarian project on the PP in the rural development

Water management planning and public participation

New Challenge for the European Countries: The Water Framework Directive

Agreed on the 23 October 2000 Assess the ecological status of water

bodies & ensure that the appropriate environmental objectives are set

Overall objective: good ecological status by Dec 2015

Achieved by a River Basin Management Plan

Implementation of EU WFD in Europe

Started in June 2001 Common methodology of all surface waters Four phases for implementation with

deadlines:

Phase 1: Deadline. Dec 2003

Phase 2: Deadline. Dec 2004

Phase 3: Deadline. Dec 2006

Phase 4: Deadline. Dec 2009

Where are we now

Preparing the guidance for the use of WFD

Classification, typology, and reference conditions Guidance

Guidance on the analysis on pressures and impacts

Guidance on Public Participation

RBM under WFD

Designation of RBM units and competent authorities

Designation of protected areas Analysis of pressures and impacts Economic analyses Preparation of monitoring programmes Identification of status of water Identification of environmental objectives Identification of programmes of measures

Public Participation in the WFD

Preamble 14

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

Preamble 46 (46) To ensure the participation of

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

The Article 14 of the Water Framework Directive

Member States shall encourage the active involvement of all interested parties in the

implementation of this Directive in particular in the production, review and updating of the river

basin management plans.

Annex VII RIVER BASIN MANAGEMENT PLANS

A. River basin management plans shall cover the following elements:

9. a summary of the public information and consultation measures taken, their results and the changes to the plan made as a consequence;

11. the contact points and procedures for obtaining the background documentation and information referred to in Article 14(1), and in particular details of the control measures adopted in accordance with Article 11(3)(g) and 11(3)(i) and of the actual monitoring data gathered in accordance with Article 8 and Annex V.

Public Participation in the different planning steps

STEP 1 (By end of 2003) Framework Identification of River Basin Districts Assignment of the Competent Authorities Transposition of the Directive into national legislation

STEP 2 (By end of 2004) Characterization and Analysis (Art.4) Characterization of the river basin district, review of

the environmental impact of human activity and economic analysis of water use.

Assessment of the likelihood that surface water bodies within the river basin district will fail to meet the environmental quality objectives set for the bodies under Article 4 (‘gap analysis’ Annex II (1.5)).

STEP 3 (By end of 2006) Planning for establishing programs of measures and outline of river basin management plans Further characterisation for those bodies identified by

the gap analysis as being at risk, in order to optimise the monitoring programme and the programme of measures.

Monitoring programmes start For Public information and consultation about the

RBMP, MS make available for comments a timetable and work programme for the production of the RBMP (MS shall allow at least six months to comment on those documents).

STEP 4 (By end of 2007) For Public information and consultation about the

RBMP, MS make available for comments an overview of the most important water management issues within the RBD (MS shall allow at least six months to comment on those documents).

STEP 5 (By the end of 2008) For Public information and consultation about the RBMP, MS

make available for comments a draft copy of River Basin Management Plan (MS shall allow at least six months to comment on those documents).

STEP 6 (By the end of 2009) Final River Basin Management Plan published Programmes of measures shall be established.

STEP 7 (By the end of 2012) Implementation Programmes of measures implemented

STEP 8 (By the end of 2015) Evaluation and updating, derogations Good water status achieved? Objectives for Protected Areas achieved? Establishing and publishing the next plans and programs Derogations

STEP 9 (By the end of 2027) Final deadline for achieving objectives, following 2 6-year

prolongations

The EU’s document on public participation: Guidance on Public Participation in Relation to the WFD

Aim: to provide general principles to the experts and the stakeholders to accomplish the prescriptions of the WFD on public participation

Main parts of the document: Implementing the Directive Introduction to Public Participation in River Basin

Management Active involvement of all interested parties in the

planning process of the Directive Consultation Access to information and background documents Evaluation, reporting results of active involvement,

public information and consultation measures Success and obstacle factors

The basis of the modern RBM: the Integration

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

and water status water management from different Member States and Accession

Countries

Success & Obstacle factors

Success factors change in attitude of

public authorities organisational

consequences political commitment

and resources capacity building and

representation of stakeholders

reaching beyond stakeholders to individual citizens and enterprises

demonstrations

Obstacle factors political tumult organisational or

institutional changes changes in budget

due to saving/cut backs

a comparable project has a bad name

Problems during the implementation of the WFD

Complicated & wide-ranging exemption and derogation conditions

New implementation problems legal harmonisation standards harmonisation

The solution: political will full participation of all stakeholders common implementation strategy international cooperation

What is the Public Participation?

Public participation is a planned effort to involve citizens in the decision-making process and

to present and resolve citizen conflict through mutual two-way communications.

The main steps of the public participation planning process

Identification of the objectives Identification of the selected actors Choice of the methods of the public

participation Preparation of the implementing plan

Who is “the public” ?

The SEIA Directive (2001/42/EC) defines in Article 2(d) “public” as “one or more natural or legal persons, and, in accordance with national legislation or practice, their associations, organisations or groups”.

This definition is the same as the definition in Article 2(4) of the Aarhus convention; it is likely to hold as well for the Directive. “Interested parties” can be defined as: “any person, group or organisation with an interest or “stake” in an issue either because they will be affected or may have some influence on its outcome.”

Pyramid of the members of the public participation process

Decision-making bodies

Agencies responsible for the implementation of the pp plan

Competent professionals on the examined topic

NGOs

Stakeholders, layers

Orbits of involvement

Unsurprised apathetics

Observers

Commenters

Technical reviewers

Active participants

Co-decisionmakers

Why public participation?

to comply with the Directive and to achieve environmental goals and other benefits

Key potential benefits: increasing public awareness of environmental

issues making use of knowledge, experience and

initiatives of the different stakeholders public acceptance, commitment and support with

regard to decision taking processes;

more transparent and more creative decision making;

less litigation, misunderstandings, fewer delays and more effective implementation;

social learning and experience–if participation results in constructive dialogue with all relevant parties involved then the various publics, government and experts can learn from each others “water awareness”.

Disadvantages of the Public Participation

Costs include the potential for confusion of the issues

many new perspectives may be introduced it is possible to receive erroneous information include uncertainty of the results of the process

The main objectives of the public participation

Establishing and maintain the legitimacy of the agency

Establish and maintain the legitimacy of the project Establish and maintain the legitimacy of all major

assumptions and earlier decisions Get to know all the potentially affected interests Identify problems Generate solutions Articulate and clarify the key issues To develop informal acceptance of options

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

Everybody joining: be selective with actors, they should reflect the right interest

everybody deciding: make clear what the responsibilities are for whom

losing control: do organise it well, clear and strategically consensus at all expenses: be prepared that the

outcome of public participation will be compromise between the wishes of several actors and that extend of the process is often limited.

Models of national PP processes

General requirements to the models

To allow active interaction between the proponent and participants

Are expected to be used in any number of stages of a participatory process

Need to be sufficiently flexible to accommodate a range of possibilities

Four models of Public Participation

CommentarySocial

Learning Joint PlanningConsent/

Consensus

Proponent-centred

Intermediary - centred Participant - centred

Relationships in the Commentary model

Proponent

StakeholderA

StakeholderB

StakeholderC

StakeholderD

Relationships in the Social Learning Model

Intermediary

Proponent

IndividualA

IndividualB

IndividualC

IndividualD

The Joint Planning Model

IntermediaryProponent

StakeholderA

StakeholderB

StakeholderC

StakeholderD

Relationships in the Consent / Consensus Model

Mediator

Proponent

StakeholderA

StakeholderB

StakeholderC

StakeholderD

Hungarian RBMPs

The former River Basin Management Planning units in Hungary, 1994 - 1998

Maros RBMP

Main Characteristics: Participative planning in the early stage of the project „snowball” method – the participants nominated – based on

their opinions – other stakeholders who could be significant in the area.

Stakeholder meetings: Area divided in 3 parts Hosting by the majors With the participation of well-known personalities living or

having property in the area International cooperation: participation of external (RO)

stakeholders (majors, experts, leaders of stakeholder-groups)

HARMONICOP

HARMONIzing COllaborative Planning

MAIN OBJECTIVE

The main objective of the HarmoniCOP project is to increase the understanding of participatory river basin management in Europe.

It aims to generate practically useful

information about and improve the scientific base of social learning in river basin management and support the implementation of the public participation provisions of the Water Framework Directive

PUBLIC AND STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION

Public and stakeholder participation refers to the active involvement of individual citizens, individual companies, public interest groups and economic interest groups in decision making.

Communication and information flows are important aspects of PP. Information and communication tools are of major importance.

ELEMENTS OF SOCIAL LEARNING 1

Processes of social learning should contain the following elements

Build up a shared problem perception in a group of actors, in particular when the problem is largely ill-defined (this does not imply consensus building).

Build trust as base for a critical self-reflection, which implies recognition of individual mental frames and images and how they pertain to decision making.

ELEMENTS OF SOCIAL LEARNING 2

Recognize mutual dependencies and interactions in the actor network.

Reflect on assumptions about the dynamics and cause-effect relationships in the system to be managed.

Reflect on subjective valuation schemes. Engage in collective decision- and learning

processes (this may include the development of new management strategies, and the introduction of new formal and informal rules).

INNOVATION 1

HarmoniCOP will give a comprehensive overview and analysis of the state of art in the participatory RBMP in Europe, using a social learning perspective.

HarmoniCOP will address the scale issue in PP and RBMP in a systematic way.

INNOVATION 2

HarmoniCOP will approach information and information tools as a means for social learning in participatory RBMP.

HarmoniCOP will do all this while considering the different national contexts – cultural, geographical, institutional an legal.

The proposed research will specifically deal with the challenges posed by the WFD

RBMP AND SCALE

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

Time

International negotiations

National imple-

mentation

Local implementat

ion

National pre-

parations

Scale

Local

National

International Basin

MAIN GOALS 1

Preparation of a “Handbook on PP methodologies“ for river basin management planning

Provide insight into social learning in a multi-phase multi-level context

MAIN GOALS 2

Increase our understanding of the role of information and information tools

Compare and assess national PP experiences and their background

Involvement of national and subnational governments and major stakeholder groups

Workpackage Structure

Framework of Analysis

Participation as a social learning process

Role of information and ICT

tools

National approaches

& background

s Inte

gra

tion

Case Studies and Experiments

Co-ordination Handbook & Dissemination

WP 1Objectives WP1 – Framing

To spell out our approach to PP and explore the main issues.

To develop a glossary in the filed of PP, social learning and RBMP for use within the project

To consult the public and stakeholders on our approach and our plans for research

To validate and further improve our plans for research

WP 2Objectives WP2 - Participation as

social learning

To conceptualise river basin management as sets of social processes at different levels, characterised by different forms of interest representation, conflictivity and institutionalisation

To specify the concept “social learning” for RBMP and make it measurable

To identify critical issues for participation as a means to promote social learning

To identify possible ways to handle these issues

WP 3

Objectives WP3 - The role of ICT tools

To provide a methodology to analyse the use of ICT tools and to assess their real impact on PP improvement

WP 4

Objectives WP4 - National approaches and backgrounds

To provide an overview of PP practices (aim, process, methods) in the different countries and, where possible, their effects

To explore the influence of institutional, legal, cultural, geographical/physical factors

To evaluate (national) learned lessons and develop practical criteria for evaluating participatory RBMP

WP 5Objectives WP5 - Case studies and

experiments

To gain first hand experience with PP in river basin management so as to examine how social processes and information tools and models are applied and used in practice at the river basin level

To study the issues identified in WP2-4 and test the ideas developed on effective PP so as to identify approaches that work and those that do not, highlighting those which can be put forward as ‘good European practices’

WP 6

Objectives WP6 – Integration

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

WP 7

Objectives WP7 - Handbook and dissemination

To promote effective dissemination of the (preliminary) results of the project

To produce a Handbook on PP methodologies to support the implementation of the PP provisions of the WFD at the EU, national and subnational level and promote social learning in RBMP

To develop an interactive communication and information platform on the internet and make the handbook a living document embedded into a community of practitioners.

Organizations involved1. USF: University of Osnabrück, Institute for Environmental

Systems Research, co-ordinator (with Aberdeen University as sub-contractors)

2. RBA: RBA Centre, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands

3. Ecologic, Germany4. KULRD: Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Centre for

Organisational and Personnel Psychology (COPP), Belgium5. RWS-RIZA, Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water

Management, The Netherlands6. ENPC, LATTS-ENPC, France7. Cemagref, France8. Delft Hydraulics: WL|Delft Hydraulics, The Netherlands9. Colenco: Colenco Power Engineering Ltd, Switzerland10. ICIS/ UM, University of Maastricht, The Netherlands11. UAH: University of Alcala de Henares, Environmental

Economics Group, Department of Economic Analysis, Spain12. Uniud: University of Udine, Italy13. BUTE: Budapest University of Technology and Economics,

Hungary14. WRc, United Kingdom (with Middlesex University, FHRC, as

sub-contractors)15. UAB: Autonomous University of Barcelona, Spain

Dialogue on the Implementation of the WFD in the Agricultural

SectorWater – Food – Environment

(WFE) Dialogue

The Hungarian Case - Study

The 10 participating countries – the 10 Accession Countries

Estonia Latvia Lithuania Poland Czech Republic Slovakia Hungary Slovenia Romania Bulgaria

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

GWP CEE - Global Water Partnership, Central and Eastern Europe

ICID ERWG - International Commission on Irrigation and Drainage, European Regional Working Group Countries represented in ICID ERWG: Austria, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech

Republic, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Lithuania, Macedonia, The Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Switzerland, Ukraine, United Kingdom

WWF - World Wide Fund for Nature, Danube-Carpathian Programme

Coordinator of the CEE and the Hungarian Dialogue process and the editor of the Final Reports – prof. István Ijjas, BUTE

Objectives of the Dialogue

General objective:

Ensure that all waters meet at least „good status” by 2015 and ensure the sustainable agriculture development

Specific objective:

The successful implementation of EU WFD in the field of agricultural water management by involving all stakeholders to the planning and execution process

KEY ISSUESIntegrated River Basin Management Planning

WATER PROTECTION

RBMP - EU WFD environmental objectives

(good status of water)

target group: ecosystems

WATER USE AND WATER SERVICES

RBMP - national guidelines

economic and social objectives

(sufficient/sustainable water use/water services)

target group: citizens

Levels of co-ordination

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

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

Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development Ministry for Environment and Water Management WWF – World Wide Fund for Nature, Hungary ICID Hungarian National Committee National Union of Water Management Associations 72 Water Management Associations – organised River Basin

oriented

The Dialogue was supported by the Hungarian Hydrological Society and the

Budapest University of Technology and Economics.

Importance of water management in Hungary

the flood plains along the rivers occupy 21.248 km2 (22.8 % of the country)

the flood plains comprise one-third of the arable lands in the country, 1.8 million hectares of valuable fields, where the value of the annual crop yield surpasses 200 thousand million Ft (800 million €)

in close to 700 communities 2.5 million people are at risk

The participating WMAs

Main Characteristics of the Dialogue

The Dialogue is a two-way process, top down approach – initiated by the Ministry of Agriculture

The countryside events are organised in a form of a „road show”

General program of the meetings: Plenary presentations – summarizing the background

information sent formerly Small group negotiations – 10-15 members, forming a

common accepted answers the question defined before Final plenary session – the groups present their opinion

and the other participants have the chance to reflect on it.

The 4 regions – the 4 main river basin units

Dialogue meetings in Hungary, 2003

Costs – financing tasks Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development

Development of Knowledge Base, logistics of the organisation of the 12 regional and 3 national Dialogue meetings, reporting, keynote speakers, facilitators, costs of travelling of the invited experts

Printing costs of the translated WFD documents Coffee breaks during the National Dialogue meetings held in

Budapest

GWP CEE Direct costs of the participation in the international Dialogue.

Cooperation with and reporting for the Global WFE Dialogue and the CEE WFE Dialogue

GWP, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development and BUTE Participation in international meetings on Global and CEE WFE

Dialogue activities, tools and benefits

Water Management Associations: Regional meetings (organised for the representatives of

one of the four region of Hungary, 30 – 50 participants)

Costs of one meeting

Printing costs of the WFD documents

Costs of travelling to the National Dialogue meetings held in Budapest (organised for the representatives of the 76 Water Management Associations, the relevant institutions and the consortium partners in Budapest, 80-150 participants)

Ongoing Activities, 2004

1st round: Tendering procedure Establishment of a expertise network among and by the WMAs

2nd round: Evaluation of the results of the 1st and 2nd Phases Analyses of pressures and impacts of human activities Characterisation of the River Basin districts (and Water Bodies) Economic analyses of water uses Identification of those water bodies, which can not meet the

requirement of the WFD unfeasible or unreasonably expensive to achieve good status reasons of overriding public interest unrealistic scientific or professional points of view

Results

The main result of the Dialogue was the Response of Hungary to the European Commission’s Working Document: „The Water Framework Directive (WFD) and tools within the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) to support its implementation” and also the new version of the EC Working Document on WFD/CAP.

The Hungarian and English version of the Working Document was also available on the website of the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development and on the website of the Union of Water Management Associations.

It has to be mentioned, that the 80% of the Hungarian opinions were adopted by the Water Directors. This result shows the usefulness and effectiveness of the Dialogue processes and of the method applied during the process, the social learning.

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

The key questions discussed by the Dialogue Process

Who was the Dialogue convener? Which external agencies were supporting the

Dialogue? How the governmental agencies were involved in

the process? How the Dialogue was linked to the political

process and institutions? How was the dialogue linked to the other

programs/actions for the implementation of the WFD?

What are the key issues being addressed?

What are the major obstacles/constraints that need to be overcome?

How was the dialogue process organized/planned? Who were the key stakeholders in the dialogue

process and what procedures have been applied to assure full stakeholder participation?

What Dialogue support tools have been used? Is there sufficient research/knowledge backing to

support the issue under discussion/consideration or there is a need for more background studies/research?

What outputs do you see emerging from this dialogue? How do you plan to document the learning, experiences and processes?

Do you require external support to conduct the future steps of the Dialogue? If so what type of support are you looking for?

Final Report on the first phase of the Dialogue 2001-2003, February 2003Dialogue on Water, Food and Environment in Central and Eastern Europe Dialogue on the Implementation of the EU Water Framework Directive in Agricultural Water Management in Central and Eastern European EU Candidate Countries First phase 2001-2003From the Hague to Kyoto CEE WFE Dialogue - Dialogue on Water, Food and Environment in Central and Eastern Europe - Dialogue on the Implementation of the EU Water Framework Directive in Agricultural Water Management in Central and Eastern European EU Candidate Countries

Dialogue on the Implementation of the EU Water Framework Directive in Agricultural Water Management in the Central and East European EU Candidate Countries - Second Phase of the Dialogue, Edited by Istvan Ijjas, coordinator of the CEE WFE Dialogue

The dialogues for this Final Report have been undertaken during the period September 2003 – February 2004. The Final Report was completed in February-March 2004. The views set out and analysis presented are those of the authors of the national report, the editor of this report and the participants of the national dialogues and do not necessarily represent the views of the GWP, ICID and WWF in general or of the national CWPs or of the Council of GWP CEE.