Current political trends and scholarly research increasingly promote collaborative and participatory governance in multi-level systems as a way to more sustainable and effective environmental policy. Yet empirical fi ndings as well as conceptual works from different academic fi elds remain ambiguous about this claim. This paper explores whether and to what extent the existence of multiple levels of governance affects the ability of participatory decision-making to deliver high quality environmental policy output and to improve implementation and compliance. To this end, fi ndings from the literature on multi-level governance, public participation and policy implementation as well as on complex systems are integrated in fi ve sets of hypotheses. In order to put these to a 'plausibility probe', a meta-analysis of 47 case studies from Northern America and Western Europe is conducted. These cases provide qualitative insights and allow for some generalization in the form of correlation analysis. The study fi nds that, predominantly, environmental preferences of the involved actors determine the environmental outputs (and outcomes) of decision-making. Further, face-to-face, but not mere two-way, communication appears to positively infl uence the ecological standard of decisions. The analysis also suggests that a highly polycentric governance system comprising many agencies and levels of governance yields higher environmental outputs than rather monocentric governance. However, correlations between governance effectiveness and decision-making scale, as well as policy delivery and institutional fi t to ecosystem, could not be identifi ed. The paper concludes by outlining pathways for more systematic comparative research on these pressing research questions. Copyright

Participation has become a mantra in environmental governance. However, there are signs that the participatory agenda has started to lose its momentum and justification because of disappointments about actual achievements. Rather than focusing on improving participatory processes or articulating best practices, in this paper we seek to understand the more fundamental reasons why difficulties are encountered. In our interviews with professionals involved in participation in environmental governance we found varying and potentially conflicting rationales for participation, with instrumental and legalistic rationales dominating. We contend that the institutional and political context in which this participation takes place is an important explanation of this prevalence. This includes the provisions for participation in EU directives, failing policy integration, institutional and political barriers, and failing political uptake of results from participation. We conclude there is a need for more reflexive awareness of the different ways in which participation is defined and practised in contemporary environmental policy making and for a more realistic assessment of possibilities for changes towards more participatory and deliberative decision making.

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)(2001)(2002)(2003)(2004)(2005)(2006)(2007)(2008)(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.

ABSTRACT. The Water Framework Directive (WFD) is arguably the most ambitious piece of European Union (EU) legislation in the field of water. The directive defines a general framework for integrated river basin management in Europe with a view to achieving "good water status" by 2015. Institutional novelties include, among others, water management at hydrological scales, the involvement of nonstate actors in water planning, and various economic principles, as well as a common strategy to support EU member states during the implementation of the directive. More than 15 years after the adoption of the WFD, and with the passing of an important milestone, 2015, we believe it is time for an interim assessment. This article provides a systematic review of existing scholarship on WFD implementation. We identify well-documented areas of research, describe largely unchartered territories, and suggest avenues for future studies. Methodologically, we relied on a meta-analysis. Based on a codebook of more than 35 items, we analyzed 89 journal articles reporting on the implementation of the directive in EU member states. Our review is organized around three major themes. The first is "who, when, and where"; we explore publication patterns, thereby looking into authors, timelines, and target journals. The second is "what"; we analyze the object of study in our source articles with a particular focus on case study countries, policy levels, the temporal stage of WFD implementation, and if the directive was not studied in its entirety, the aspect of the WFD that received scholarly attention. The third is "how," i.e., theoretical and methodological choices made when studying the WFD.

Participatory environmental governance is increasing worldwide. One area where such governance forms are apparent is in the management of water resources. For example, in the European Union the Water Framework Directive mandates several forms of involvement via its legal obligations. Under the Directive, implementing agencies should provide information on river basin management planning to the public, consult citizens and stakeholders during planning and actively involve interested parties in the plan process. Yet questions arise over the success of participatory processes on the ground in EU member states. In this study, participation was therefore evaluated in WFD river basin planning in England and Wales using process, community, output and outcome-related indicators. Research was conducted through extensive quantitative and qualitative data collection over a long temporal scale within case analyses of the Anglian, Humber and South West river basin districts. Results suggest that while the first phase of river basin management largely met legal requirements, the actual success of participatory water governance was mixed. On this basis, recommendations are made for enhancing participation in future river basin planning through national and EU policy.