European River Basin Districts: Are They Swimming in the Same Implementation Pool?

Keessen, Andrea; Kempen, J.J.H. van; Rijswick, Marleen van; Robbe, J.; Backes, Ch.W.

doi:10.1093/jel/eqq003

Cited by 54 publications

(51 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Finally, the Netherlands shows itself to be cautious to formalise standards too strictly, e.g. it formulates environmental standards as target values (richtwaarden) rather than intervention values (grenswaarden) (Keessen et al 2010). One of the reasons for Dutch cautiousness in formal implementation is that legal obligations can easily lead to court cases in a juridical system as accessible as the Dutch one (VROM-raad 2008).…”

Section: The Netherlandsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The marathon of the hare and the tortoise: implementing the EU Water Framework Directive

Bourblanc¹,

Crabbé²,

Liefferink³

et al. 2013

Journal of Environmental Planning and Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Reading the available evidence on the implementation of the European Water Framework Directive (WFD), one gets the impression that some countries anticipate implementation problems by starting off pragmatically and with relatively low ambitions, while others make a quick and ambitious start and tend to slow down in later phases of the process. Inspired by Lundqvist's classical study of air pollution policy in the USA and Sweden, we assess the importance of some general characteristics of the respective political-institutional systems to explain differences in WFD implementation in four EU countries: Denmark, France, England/ Wales and the Netherlands. We conclude, among other things, that visibility of the policy process, accountability of politicians and policy makers vis-a`-vis their stakeholders and the EU, division of responsibilities for policy formulation vs. implementation and the involvement of the public explain the level of ambition in EU implementation to a considerable extent. Thus, the Lundqvist variables turn out to be useful for both classifying and explaining differences in EU implementation processes.

show abstract

Section: The Netherlandsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The marathon of the hare and the tortoise: implementing the EU Water Framework Directive

Bourblanc¹,

Crabbé²,

Liefferink³

et al. 2013

Journal of Environmental Planning and Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For example, one of the cornerstones of the FD's coordination requirements states that FRMPs may not include measures that could lead to a significant increase in risk upstream or downstream in another country within the river basin (recital 13 FD). This is an externalization of the solidarity requirement (see recital 15 FD; Keessen et al 2010).…”

Section: Impact Of the Floods Directivementioning

confidence: 99%

The European Union approach to flood risk management and improving societal resilience: lessons from the implementation of the Floods Directive in six European countries

Priest¹,

Suykens²,

Rijswick³

et al. 2016

E&S

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT. Diversity in flood risk management approaches is often considered to be a strength. However, in some national settings, and especially for transboundary rivers, variability and incompatibility of approaches can reduce the effectiveness of flood risk management. Placed in the context of increasing flood risks, as well as the potential for flooding to undermine the European Union's sustainable development goals, a desire to increase societal resilience to flooding has prompted the introduction of a common European Framework. We provide a legal and policy analysis of the implementation of the Floods Directive (2007/60/EC) in six countries: Belgium (Flemish region), England, France, the Netherlands, Poland, and Sweden. Evaluation criteria from existing legal and policy literature frame the study of the Directive and its effect on enhancing or constraining societal resilience by using an adaptive governance approach. These criteria are initially used to analyze the key components of the EU approach, before providing insight of the implementation of the Directive at a national level. Similarities and differences in the legal translation of European goals into existing flood risk management are analyzed alongside their relative influence on policy and practice. The research highlights that the effect of the Floods Directive on increasing societal resilience has been nationally variable, in part because of its focus on procedural obligations, rather than on more substantive requirements. Analysis shows that despite a focus on transboundary river basin management, existing traditions of flood risk management have overridden objectives to harmonize flood risk management in some cases. The Directive could be strengthened by requiring more stringent cooperation and providing the competent authorities in international river basin districts with more power. Despite some shortcomings in directly affecting flood risk outcomes, the Directive has positively stimulated discussion and flood risk management planning in countries that were perhaps lagging behind.

show abstract

“…There are no easy solutions: it requires a great deal of creativity to establish suitable general legal principles under paradoxical requirements. Norms that are formulated in a more general way may lead to different application by several actors (Keessen et al 2010), to uncertainties in what to do, and to unequal treatment, and-in the end-they have to be contextualized by judges in their jurisprudence. This raises a typical common law problem: if the law can be understood only by specialist lawyers who know all the case law, it also lacks the clarity for citizens which Fuller asks for.…”

Section: The Potential Of Law In Adaptive Governancementioning

confidence: 99%

Enabling the Contextualization of Legal Rules in Responsive Strategies to Climate Change

Rijswick¹,

Salet²

2012

E&S

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT. The paradigm of adaptive governance is paramount in policy discourses on the mitigation and adaptation strategies of climate change. Adaptability, resilience, and cooperative approaches are promoted as the appropriate vehicles to meet the contemporary conditions of uncertainty and complexity. We claim that the legitimacy and effectiveness of these responsive strategies might be augmented via the use of legal perspectives. Rather than the instrumental use of command and control type of regulation, the legal perspectives should focus on establishing principal norms that enable the search for different solutions in different contexts. From these assumptions, the concept of legal obligation is explored as embodying the meaning of legality, and at the same time conditioning and committing the probing of different ways of purposeful action in different local circumstances. We explore the innovative potential of legal norms and demonstrate how responsive strategies to climate change can be guided by the contextualization of legal norms.

show abstract

European River Basin Districts: Are They Swimming in the Same Implementation Pool?

Abstract: This article presents a comparative perspective of the implementation of the Water Framework Directive (WFD). The investigated Member States are the Netherlands,

Cited by 54 publications

References 0 publications

The marathon of the hare and the tortoise: implementing the EU Water Framework Directive

The marathon of the hare and the tortoise: implementing the EU Water Framework Directive

The European Union approach to flood risk management and improving societal resilience: lessons from the implementation of the Floods Directive in six European countries

Enabling the Contextualization of Legal Rules in Responsive Strategies to Climate Change

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About