AMBIO

, Volume 40, Issue 2, pp 210–220 | Cite as

Governance of Water Resources in the Phase of Change: A Case Study of the Implementation of the EU Water Framework Directive in Sweden

  • Monica Hammer
  • Berit Balfors
  • Ulla Mörtberg
  • Mona Petersson
  • Andrew Quin
Article

Abstract

In this article, focusing on the ongoing implementation of the EU Water Framework Directive, we analyze some of the opportunities and challenges for a sustainable governance of water resources from an ecosystem management perspective. In the face of uncertainty and change, the ecosystem approach as a holistic and integrated management framework is increasingly recognized. The ongoing implementation of the Water Framework Directive (WFD) could be viewed as a reorganization phase in the process of change in institutional arrangements and ecosystems. In this case study from the Northern Baltic Sea River Basin District, Sweden, we focus in particular on data and information management from a multi-level governance perspective from the local stakeholder to the River Basin level. We apply a document analysis, hydrological mapping, and GIS models to analyze some of the institutional framework created for the implementation of the WFD. The study underlines the importance of institutional arrangements that can handle variability of local situations and trade-offs between solutions and priorities on different hierarchical levels.

Keywords

Ecosystem management GIS Hydrological mapping Information management Stakeholder participation 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This study was funded by the Foundation for Baltic and East European Studies and the EU BONUS-program. We thank Ingela Andersson, Frida Franzén, Tore Söderqvist, and Dan Warghagen for interesting discussions and comments on earlier versions of the manuscript. We also thank two anonymous reviewers for constructive comments on the manuscript.

References

  1. Bergström, S., S. Hellström, and J. Andréasson. 2006. Water levels and discharges in the water systems of Lake Vänern and Lake Mälaren—Hydrologic white paper to the Commission on Climate and Vulnerability in Sweden. SMHI Reports Hydrology, RH No. 20. (in Swedish).Google Scholar
  2. Berkes, F., J. Colding, and C. Folke. (eds.). 2003. Navigating Social-Ecological Systems Building Resilience for Complexity and Change. Cambridge University Press. 393 pp.Google Scholar
  3. Beven, K., and M. Kirkby. 1979. A physically based variable contributing area model of basin hydrology. Hydrological Sciences Bulletin 24: 43–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Blackmore, C., R. Ison, and J. Jiggins. 2007. Editorial: Social learning: an alternative policy instrument for managing in the context of Europe’s water. Environmental Science & Policy 10: 493–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Böhme, K. 2002. Nordic Echoes of European Spatial Planning. Nordregio, Report 2002:8, Stockholm.Google Scholar
  6. Chalmers, N., and C. Fabricius. 2007. Expert and generalist local knowledge about land-cover change on South Africa’s wild coast: Can local ecological knowledge add value to science? Ecology and Society. 12:10. http//:www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol12/iss1/art10/.
  7. Christensen, N., A. Bartuska, J. Brown, S. Carpenter, R. d’Antoni, J. Francis, J. Franklin, R. MacMahon, et al. 2003. The report of the Ecological Society of America on the scientific basis for ecosystem management. Ecological Applications 6: 665–691.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Convention on Biodiversity (CBD). 1998. Report of the workshop on the Ecosystem Approach. Lilongwe, Malawi. 26–28 January, 1998. UNEP/COP/4/Inf.9.Google Scholar
  9. Daily, G. (ed.). 1997. Natures’ services. Societal dependence on natural ecosystems. Washington D.C.: Island Press.Google Scholar
  10. Dale, V.H., S. Brown, R.A. Haeuber, N.T. Hobbs, N. Huntley, R.J. Naiman, W.E. Ribesame, M.G. Turner, et al. 2000. Ecological principles and guidelines for managing the use of land. Ecological Applications 10: 639–670.Google Scholar
  11. Destouni, G., K. Persson, C. Prieto, and J. Jarsjö. 2010. General quantification of catchment-scale nutrient and pollutant transport through the subsurface and coastal waters. Environmental Science and Technology 44: 2048–2055.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. ESRI. 2008. ArcGIS (Version 9.3) GIS Application. Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc.Google Scholar
  13. European Parliament, Council. 2000. Directive 2000/60/EC (Water Framework Directive). Google Scholar
  14. European Commission. 2003. Common Implementation Strategy for the Water Framework Directive (200/60/EC), Guidance document no. 8, Public Participation in relation to the Water Framework Directive. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. Luxembourg.Google Scholar
  15. Falkenmark, M., and C. Folke. 2000. How to bring ecological services into integrated water resources management. AMBIO 29: 351–352.Google Scholar
  16. Folke, C. 2006. Resilience: The emergence of a perspective for social–ecological systems analyses. Global Environmental Change 16: 253–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Folke, C., F. Berkes, J. Colding, and U. Svedin. 1998. The problem of fit between ecosystems and institutions. IHDP Working Paper No. 2. International Human Dimensions Program on Global Environmental Change, Bonn, Germany. Available online at:http://www.ihdp.uni-bonn.de/html/publications/workingpaper/wp02m.htm.
  18. Gadgil, M., P. Olsson, F. Berkes, and C. Folke. 2003. Exploring the role of local ecological knowledge in ecosystem management: Three casestudies. In Navigating social–ecological systems: Building resilience for complexity and change, ed. F. Berkes, J. Colding, and C. Folke, 189–209. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Grabs, T., J. Seibert, K. Bishop, and H. Laudon. 2009. Modeling spatial patterns of saturated areas: A comparison of the topographic wetness index and a dynamic distributed model. Journal of Hydrology 373: 15–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gunderson, L., and C.S. Holling, (eds.) 2002. Panarchy: Understanding Transformations in Human and Natural Systems. I Washington D.C.: Island Press.Google Scholar
  21. Hammer, M., C.M. Holmlund, and M. Åqvist Almlöv. 2003. Social-ecological feedback links for ecosystem management: A case study of the Central Baltic Sea Archipelago. Ocean and Coastal Management 46: 527–545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hedin, S., A. Dubois, R. Ikonen, P. Lindblom, S. Nilsson, V.-P. Tynkkynen, M. Viehhauser, Ü. Leisk et al. 2007. The Water Framework Directive in the Baltic Sea Region Countries—vertical implementation, horizontal integration and transnational cooperation. Nordregio. 2007: 2 Stockholm. 176 pp.Google Scholar
  23. HELCOM (Helsinki commission). 2008. Convention on the protection of the marine environment of the Baltic Sea area. Including the amendments to its Annexes adopted by the Helsinki Commission in 2000, 2001, 2003 and 2007. Helsinki Commission, Baltic Marine Environment Protection Commission. www.helcom.fi.
  24. Holling, C.S. 1973. Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 4: 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Holmlund, C.M., and M. Hammer. 1999. Ecosystem Services Generated by Fish Populations. Ecological Economics 29: 253–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Jöborn, A., I. Danielsson, B. Arheimer, A. Jonsson, M.H. Larsson, L.J. Lundqvist, M. Löwgren, and K. Tonderski. 2005. Integrated water management for eutrophication control: Public participation, pricing policy, and catchment modeling. AMBIO 34: 482–488.Google Scholar
  27. Kern, K., and T. Löffelsend. 2004. Governance beyond the nation-state: Transnationalization and Europeization of the Baltic Sea region. Discussion Paper SP IV 2004-105. Social Science Research Center. Berlin.Google Scholar
  28. Lantmäteriet. 2010a. GSD terrain elevation databank. Lantmäteriet, Gävle (retrieved May 10, 2010, grant I 2010/0044, https://butiken.metria.se/digibib/index.php).
  29. Lantmäteriet. 2010b. GSD topographic map. Lantmäteriet, Gävle (retrieved May 10, 2010, grant I 2010/0044, https://butiken.metria.se/digibib/index.php).
  30. Lantmäteriet. 2010c. GSD property Map. Lantmäteriet, Gävle (retrieved May 10, 2010, grant I 2010/0044, https://butiken.metria.se/digibib/index.php).
  31. Lindahl, T., and T. Söderqvist. 2004. Building a catchment-based environmental programme: A stakeholder analysis of wetland creation in Scania, Sweden. Regional Environmental Change 4: 132–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lundqvist, L. 2004. Integrating Swedish water resource management: A multi-level governance trilemma. Local Environment 9: 413–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Länsstyrelsen Västmanlands län, Vattenmyndigheten Norra Östersjön. 2009a. Programme of Measures. The Northern Baltic Sea River Basin District 2009–2015 (in Swedish).Google Scholar
  34. Länsstyrelsen Västmanlands län, Vattenmyndigheten Norra Östersjön. 2009b. Management Plan. The Northern Baltic Sea River Basin District 2009–2015 (in Swedish).Google Scholar
  35. Länsstyrelsen Västmanlands län, Vattenmyndigheten Norra Östersjön. 2009c. Environmental quality standards. The Northern Baltic Sea River Basin District 2009 (in Swedish).Google Scholar
  36. Meinzen-Dick, R. 2007. Beyond panaceas in water institutions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 104: 15200–15205.Google Scholar
  37. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. (MA). 2005. Ecosystems and human well-being: Synthesis. Island Press, Washington D.C., USA.Google Scholar
  38. Neuendorf, K.A. 2002. The Content Analysis Guidebook. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  39. Nilsson, S. 2006. Managing water according to river basins. Information management, institutional arrangements and strategic policy support—with focus on the EU Water Framework Directive. TRITA-LWR. PhD Thesis 1030.Google Scholar
  40. Nilsson, S., and S. Langaas. 2006. International river basin management under the EU Water Framework Directive: An assessment of cooperation and water quality in the Baltic Sea Drainage Basin. AMBIO 35: 304–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Ostrom, E. 2005. Understanding Institutional Diversity. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Polyakov, V., A. Fares, and M.H. Ryder. 2005. Precision riparian buffers for the control of nonpoint source pollutant loading into surface water: A review. Environmental Reviews 13: 129–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Quinn, P., K. Beven, and R. Lamb. 1995. The ln(a/tanß) index: How to calculate it and how to use it within the TOPMODEL framework. Hydrological Processes 9: 161–182.Google Scholar
  44. Reid, W., F. Berkes, T.J. Wilbanks, and D. Capistrano. 2006. Bridging scales and knowledge systems. Concepts and applications in ecosystem assessment. Island Press. Covelo. 351 pp.Google Scholar
  45. Russell, G.D., C.P. Hawkins, and M.P. O’Neill. 1997. The role of GIS in selecting sites for riparian restoration based on hydrology and land use. Restoration Ecology 5: 56–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Saloranta, T.M., J. Kämäri, S. Rekolainen, and O. Malve. 2003. Benchmark criteria: A tool for selecting appropriate models in the field of water management. Environmental Management 32: 322–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. SMHI. 2010. GSD river basin data, Swedish water archive. SVAR 2008. (retrieved Mar 18, 2010, © Lantmäteriet Gävle 2010. Permission I 2010/0056, http://produkter.smhi.se/svar/svar2008.htm).
  48. Söderqvist, T. 2002. Constructed wetlands as nitrogen sinks in Southern Sweden: An empirical analysis of cost determinants. Ecological Engineering 19: 161–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Söderqvist, T. 2003. Are farmers prosocial? Determinants of the willingness to participate in a Swedish catchment-based wetland creation programme. Ecological Economics 47: 105–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Steyaert, P., and J. Jiggins. 2007. Governance of complex environmental situations through social learning: a synthesis of SLIM’s lessons for research, policy and practice. Environmental Science & Policy 10: 575–586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Tarboton, D. 1997. A new method for the determination of flow directions and upslope areas in grid digital elevation models. Water Resources Research 33: 309–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Tarboton, D.G., K.A.T. Schreuders, D.W. Watson, and M.E. Baker. 2009. Generalized terrain-based flow analysis of digital elevation models. 18th World IMACS Congress and MODSIM09 International Congress on Modelling and Simulation, ed. R. S. Anderssen, R. D. Braddock, and L.T.H. Newham. Modelling and Simulation Society of Australia and New Zealand and International Association for Mathematics and Computers in Simulation, July 2009: 2000–2006.Google Scholar
  53. Toderi, M., N. Powell, G. Seddaiu, P.P. Roggero, and D. Gibbon. 2007. Combining social learning with agro-ecological research practice for more effective management of nitrate pollution. Environmental Science and Policy 10: 551–563.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. White, D., and S. Fennessy. 2005. Modeling the suitability of wetland restoration potential at the watershed scale. Ecological Engineering 24: 359–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Young, O. 2002. The Institutional Dimensions of Environmental Change: Fit, Interplay, and Scale. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Monica Hammer
    • 1
  • Berit Balfors
    • 2
  • Ulla Mörtberg
    • 2
  • Mona Petersson
    • 1
  • Andrew Quin
    • 2
  1. 1.School of Life SciencesSödertörn UniversityHuddingeSweden
  2. 2.Department of Land and Water Resources EngineeringKTH, Royal Institute of TechnologyStockholmSweden

Personalised recommendations