Law and Governance of Water Protection Policy

Environmental Protection: European Law and Governance

Volumn , Issue , 2009, Pages

  Lee, Maria ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Common implementation strategy; Economic instruments; Multi level governance; Public participation; Water; Water framework directive

Indexed keywords

EID: 77954508973     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199565177.003.0002     Document Type: Chapter

References (25)

1. For more detail on water legislation, see Ludwig Kramer, EC Environmental Law (Sweet and Maxwell, 2006).
2. On new governance in the Water Framework Directive, see especially Scott, J. and Holder, J., 'Law and New Environmental Governance in the European Union' in de Búrca, G. and Scott, J., Law and New Governance in the EU and the US (Hart, 2006).
3. See Jordan, A., 'European Community Water Policy Standards: Locked in or Watered Down?', Journal of Common Market Studies 37 (1999) 13.
4. See the discussion in Howarth, W., 'The Progression Towards Ecological Quality Standards' (2006) 18 Journal of Environmental Law 3.
5. So for example, in England and Wales, twelve lake types have been identified, Summary Report of the Characterisation, Impacts and Economic Analyses Required by Article 5: Thames River Basin District (DEFRA, 2005) p. 11.
6. The percentage of heavily modified or artificial water bodies varies enormously between Member States, from under 2% (provisionally) in Ireland and Latvia, to 95% in the Netherlands, see Commission Working Document Accompanying document to COM (2007) 128 final SEC (2007) 363.
7. See Kaika, M. and Page, B., 'The EU Water Framework Directive: Part 1. European Policy Making and the Changing Topography of Lobbying' European Environment 13 (2003) 314. The Water Framework Directive was negotiated in the early days of co-decision, and was the first time the conciliation committee was used.
8. Flynn, B. and Kröger, L., 'Can Policy Learning Really Improve Implementation? Evidence From Irish Responses to the Water Framework Directive' European Environment 13(2003) 150.
9. See also Macrory, R. and Turner, S., 'Participatory Rights, Transboundary Environmental Governance and EC Law' (2002) 39 Common Market Law Review 489.
10. European Commission, Towards Sustainable Water Management in the European Union-First stage in the implementation of the Water Framework Directive 2000/60/EC COM (2007) 128 final, p. 7.
11. For a detailed analysis of Article 9, see Bloch, H., 'European Water Policy and the Water Framework Directive' (2004) Journal for European Environmental & Planning Law 170.
12. Massarotto, A., 'Water Pricing and Irrigation Water Demand: Economic Efficiency versus Environmental Sustainability', European Environment 13 (2003) 100 argues that pricing will make irrigation more efficient, in that it will be aimed at high value crops, but not necessarily more sustainable.
13. The north/south division is not as clear cut as this suggests. See generally the discussion in Page, B. and Kaika, M., 'The EU Water Framework Directive: Part 2. Policy Innovation and the shifting Choreography of Governance' European Environment 13 (2003) 328.
14. Arnstein, S.R., 'A Ladder of Citizen Participation', (1969) 36 Journal of American Planning Association 36 (1969) 216.
15. Eden, S. and Tunstall, S., 'Ecological versus Social Restoration? How Urban River Restoration Challenges but also Fails to Challenge the Science-Policy Nexus in the United Kingdom' Environment and Planning C:Government and Policy 24 (2006) 661, 669.
16. Strategic Document, Common Strategy on the Implementation of the Water Framework Directive (2001).
17. European Environmental NGO Technical Review of the Water Framework Directive Intercalibration Process (EEB, RSPB and Pond Conservation, 2006).
18. See for example Jasanoff, S., 'Transparency in Public Science:Purposes, Reasons, Limits' (2006) 69 Law and Contemporary Problems 21.
19. See for example Sabel, C.F. and Zeitlin, J., 'Learning from Difference:The New Architecture of Experimentalist Governance in the European Union', European Governance Papers C-97-02 and their discussion of 'democratizing destabilisation'.
20. See Papadopoulous, Y., 'Problems of Democratic Accountability in Network and Multilevel Governance' (2007) 13 European Law Journal 469.
21. Hey, C., Towards Balancing Participation (European Environmental Bureau, 2000), discussing IPPC.
22. Harlow, C. and Rawlings, R., 'Promoting accountability in multi-level governance: a network approach' (2007) 13 European Law Journal 542.
23. Smismans, S., 'New Modes of Governance and the Participatory Myth' (2006) European Governance Papers 06-01.
24. See for example Shapiro, M., 'Administrative Law Unbounded:Reflections on Government and Governance' [2001] Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies 369;
25. Allott, P., 'European Governance and the Re-Branding of Democracy' (2002) 27 European Law Review 60.