Layering, Administrative Change and National Paths to Europeanization: The Case of the Water Framework Directive

Abstract

The EU Water Framework Directive (WFD) can be seen as a reform effort that intervenes in the member states' domestic administrative system by obliging "whole of government" measures across sectoral lines of authority and levels of government. This puts pressure on the sectoral authorities to coordinate their activities. In this article we ask the following questions: How do the state executives respond to the WFD? How can we understand their behaviour and action choices in the implementation of EU law? And third: What can our findings tell us about changes to the European administrative system? This article reveals that despite resistance and strong cognitive priors among the state executives, the WFD logic of ecosystem-based management is gaining a foothold as an administrative principle. Thus, in order to explain changes in the administrative system, we need to take the regional level into account. Our findings suggest that attention needs to be paid to the role of complex, multi-level structures, which includes the regional, river basin district level in the development of a European administrative order.

Images of Coordination: How Implementing Organizations Perceive Coordination Arrangements

“…Moreover, the framework is specifically geared toward whole‐of‐government coordination. It has been applied extensively in recent (comparative) studies on coordination arrangements (e.g., Cappo and Verity ; Carayannopoulos ; Carey and Crammond ; Carey, Mcloughlin, and Crammond ; Castelnovo and Sorrentino ; Indset and Stokke ; Karré, van der Steen, and van Twist ; Nordbeck and Steurer ).…”

“…The instrumental perspective builds on Simon's bounded rationality and follows the logic of consequence, arguing that political and administrative leaders use structural and procedural instruments to channel attention and decision‐making behavior (Carey, Mcloughlin, and Crammond ; Christensen et al ; Indset and Stokke ; Klijn and Koppenjan ; Lægreid and Rykkja ). This instrumental perspective is divided into a hierarchical‐instrumental and a negotiation‐instrumental type (Christensen et al ; March and Olsen ).…”

“…Coordination, in the institutional perspective , is less preoccupied with rationally designed structural instruments, focusing on incremental change of values and norms (Christensen and Lægreid ; Indset and Stokke ). The institutional perspective is divided into two types: cultural and myth , both based on the logic of appropriateness.…”

Building bridges over troubled waters: Administrative change at the regional level in European, multilevel water management

“…This study directs attention to mismatching principles, suggesting that the role of the Commission and ERNs need to be further understood confronted with diverging coordination challenges (T. Christensen & Laegreid, 2013). The WFD has gained scholarly attention for its deployment in the member states (MS) and administrative adaptation at this level (Bourblanc, Crabbé, Liefferink, & Wiering, 2013;Indset & Stokke, 2014;Keessen, van Kempen, van Rijswick, Robbe, & Backes, 2010;Pahl-Wostl, 2009). Here, it is argued that in order to understand mechanisms of coordination, the European level should be included.…”

A Methodology to Analyse and Assess Pumping Management Strategies in Coastal Aquifers to Avoid Degradation Due to Seawater Intrusion Problems

“…Over the last decade, the application of the EU Water Framework Directive (EU-WFD, 2000, Willaarts et al, 2014;Indset et al, 2015), has promoted the development of research work about sustainable use and management of groundwater in coastal aquifers (Ferreira da Silva and Haie, 2007;Hugman et al, 2015;Senent-Aparicio et al, 2015). To prevent progress of marine intrusion inland, the fresh groundwater flows to the sea must be maintained.…”