No abstract

No abstract

This paper discusses the opportunities and constraints regarding the effective implementation of the European Water Framework Directive (WFD) in the area of diffuse nitrate pollution. Owing to the subsidiarity principle and a new procedural mode of governance, the WFD only sets distinct environmental targets, leaving most decisions on how to operationalize and institutionalize the reduction of diffuse nitrate pollution to the member states. This is a particular challenge for Germany, where lower scale regions have become the main implementers of European water policy. Successful implementation of the WFD, i.e. the actual improvement of water quality, depends on a series of key contextual and contingent factors, operating at a regional scale. In a Northwest German region with intensive agriculture and severe nitrate pollution, we analyse the historical and economic context and actor network of the region as well as the influence of environmental groups on public participation, the potential of biogas technology and new financial options. Besides the specific influence of these factors on the implementation process, we explore the uncertainties and difficulties surrounding European legislation and its operationalization in Germany and on a regional scale.

The Water Framework Directive (WFD) calls for various modes of public. These participation and involvement. These are judged as key factors to support the successful implementation in terms of attaining a good water status. This paper aims to explore the role of the 'active involvement' of stakeholders for the effective implementation of the WFD regarding the specific problem of reducing agricultural nitrate pollution of groundwater. Our case of reference is the Hase river catchment in northwest Germany, which is a paradigmatic example of an intensive livestock farming region with high nitrate intakes in groundwater. Emphasis is placed on the various forms of involvement that have recently been or will soon be established in northwest Germany at different spatial and administrative scales. We argue that although the WFD refers to whole river basins as the central unit of governance, it is particularly the regional and local scales that will strongly influence the implementation process. We identify different influencing factors and scenario paths, demonstrating both the uncertainties at stake and the range of possible effects that different outcomes of participatory processes will have. These, in turn, are closely linked to the interests, perceptions and strengths of different actors. Identification of critical paths

In the face of complex and uncertain issues, one important goal of public participation in resource management and research is to foster communication and the inclusion of non-expert knowledge-thus the effective flow of information between project organisers and stakeholders. We compare different methods (instruments, tools) that were employed in the German-Austrian 'PartizipA' project to structure information flows in participatory processes. Depending on their goals and context, more or less 'formalised' and 'participatory' methods were applied, the most important being guided interviews, focus groups, agent-based modelling, nutrient modelling, cognitive mapping and group model building as well as the development of a common document. Two regional case studies, both concerned with European-induced institutional change, are portrayed in which the specific participatory methods were embedded. The Austrian case study involved the analysis and modelling of agricultural land use in the region of St. Pölten against the background of the reform of the Common Agricultural Policy, while the implementation of recent European water policy was the issue in the German agricultural region north of Osnabrück. Presenting both cases in their regional context, the applied methods are first described according to the logic of the entire respective process.