Search Results

The Water Framework Directive takes an ambitious approach to environmental protection, albeit characterized by flexibility in both language and environmental objectives. This flexibility is constrained by the explicit terms of the Directive, which without commanding particular results, demand that particular tools, approaches, and considerations be used in decision making. The flexibility is further constrained beyond the terms of the legislation through the Common Implementation Strategy, which provides for cooperation between the member states, the Commission and others in the detailed implementation of the Directive. The novel approaches in the Water Framework Directive inevitably raise concerns around both legal and political accountability. However, the combination of these ambitious objectives with mechanisms of new governance is no coincidence — flexibility recognises social and ecological realities, and without it the ambition of the Directive would not be possible. The constraints within and beyond the wording of the legislation keep that flexibility within certain bounds.

This chapter discusses the implementation of water management in the EU. Topics covered include the role of the European Commission, and developing, testing, and evaluating the implementation strategy for the water framework directive.

This chapter examines how the European Court of Justice (ECJ) has navigated, or sometimes failed to navigate, a knotty problem in the application of equality laws. It discusses the ECJ's approach to the relationship between sex equality law and social policy. This is followed by an account of recent cases which take up the age discrimination provisions in the Framework Equal Treatment Directive (FETD). It shows that the ECJ steered itself into stormy waters in its early decision in Mangold, but has since tried to find a way out. In so doing, it might seem to have weakened the potential impact of the FETD. The final section considers whether and why this might be an appropriate outcome in light of the policy objectives of the Directive and the political conditions under which it was promulgated.

This chapter discusses water management in the European Union. Topics covered include the adoption of the water framework directive in 2000, instituting public participation in water management, and making water policy matter.

This chapter argues that EU mandates in the electronic communications sector have had an accountability-enhancing effect at the member-state level, an effect that can be better appreciated if considered in the context of the decentralized EU regulatory structure. The chapter begins by providing some context and outlining certain substantive EU regulatory initiatives. The focus then moves to institutional and procedural EU mandates, which, as the case studies will further demonstrate, generate the “democratic surplus.” I argue that the enhancement of democratic accountability was a side effect of the EU advancing the substantive goal of an internal telecommunications market. The chapter further assesses the impact of these procedural provisions against the backdrop of the decentralized EU regime. It considers traditional theoretical arguments in favor of decentralization (regulatory competition, experimentation/innovation, and democratic participation) and applies them to the novel context of regulatory processes. Last, the chapter explains the case selection.

This chapter discusses the issue of institutional effectiveness within the context of the water framework directive (WFD). The WFD prescribes that a river basin district must be managed by a competent authority. Certain states have interpreted this provision as a requirement to establish river basin districts that would be governed by river basin institutions. Other countries have adopted more of a coordinating outlook to implementation, according to which multiple national, regional, and local authorities are to work together to prepare a river basin management plan. The preoccupation of both new and existing institutions of river basin management is how to ensure a high degree of effectiveness in water management.

This chapter discusses the centralization and decentralization challenges emerging from the water framework directive. For most member states of the EU, the mandate to manage water at the river basin involves an intricate balance between decentralization and centralization because some of the operational tasks delegated to local authorities would need to be coordinated better and some river basin planning would have to devolve to river basin institutions.

The eighth chapter focuses on non-workplace discrimination. The relevant provisions of the Race Directive and the Goods and Services Directive are examined, as well as the Test-Achats judgment and the Commission's 2011 Guidelines on the meaning of that judgment. The Commission's 2008 proposal to implement the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation outside the workplace is analysed in detail.

This chapter focuses on the protection and management of fresh water and coastal waters and of maritime waters, respectively. According to the centrepiece of EU water law, water is not ‘a commercial product like any other but, rather, a heritage which must be protected, defended and treated as such’. At the same time, however, water resources are subject to considerable pressures, though the water environment is also subject to rather extensive EU regulation and has been so for some time. In that vein, the chapter focuses on legislation regarding the environmental protection of water, and does not cover other topics relevant to water pollution—air emissions, waste and chemicals, and so on—as they are already discussed in other chapters. This chapter first examines the legislation on water protection, such as the Water Framework Directive (WFD) and other such legal acts, and also deals briefly with maritime activities.

This chapter discusses the role of national water institutions in water management and veto players as inhibitors of effective water management. The water framework directive (WFD) imposes a top-down model for water management that have to be applied by all states in order to create some level of harmonization of administrative space in the EU called Europeanization. Political veto players consist of a number of constituencies that perceive the implementation of WFD as a threat to their interests. These political veto players are primarily water users who are concerned about forfeiting perceived entitlements to water use. Other veto players are institutional — already established institutions could view with suspicion new authorities entrusted with water management or existing authorities vested with new powers.

This chapter begins with a discussion of institutional leadership in the implementation of the water framework directive (WFD). Many central and eastern European member states have assigned the implementation of the WFD to their ministries of environment. To address cross-sector coordination, most countries have established interministerial committees comprised of ministries that have to work together to effectuate implementation. Four models for managing water resources are then considered: the concurrent jurisdiction model, river basin model, soft coordination model, and structured collaboration model.

This chapter begins with a discussion of coordination of EU policies. It then discusses how to make regional policy work for water policy, environmental policy and industrial competitiveness, transportation and energy policy and the sustainability of water resources, and greening agricultural policy.

This chapter examines public participation in water management. The water framework directive (WFD) has institutionalized stakeholder consultation and participation of the public in water management through the provision of information to the public; the consultation with stakeholders; and the active involvement of stakeholders/public in the decision-making process. The participation of stakeholders in water management has been touted for the advantages it brings to effective rulemaking. However, participatory processes may, instead of bringing the parties together, drive them apart by making their differences more pronounced or, even worse, lead to a search for the lowest common denominator.

This chapter focuses on the benefits and costs associated with the right of the public and stakeholders to participate in the decision-making process and the soundness of rationale of establishing public and stakeholder consultation in water management. It discusses the Aarhus Convention which has established the right of the public to environmental information.

This chapter discusses the Elbe River regime. The Elbe River basin district exemplifies the coordination required among various levels and authorities for the implementation of the water framework directive (WFD). Three hydrological levels of cooperation have been established — the international river basin district of the Elbe, working areas of the international district, and the FGG-Elbe that is organized based on hydrographic working areas. There are four administrative levels that must be coordinated on the German side, namely, the international level, the federal state, the länder, and the local level. There are also five administrative levels that must be coordinated on the Czech side, namely, the international level, the national government, the water boards, the regions, and the municipalities.

This chapter focuses on the role of secretariats in international water commissions. It argues that the implementation of the water framework directive will depend on political will. This political will is expressed by the annual gatherings of state parties (COPs) for the purpose of defining the future of international water commissions. The political will is translated further in the day-to-day work of commissions through the various coordinating and working groups that have been established. Political will can be transmitted through the mandates given to secretariats and how secretariats are to use these mandates to further the mission of the convention they have been entrusted to serve.

This chapter provides an overview of the EU’s extensive legal framework on the management and transport of various kinds of waste. Waste law has increasingly become a part of the wider policy framework for sustainable consumption and production and the so-called ‘circular economy’. This has led to an increasing focus on reuse and recovery, but also on the design and composition of products so as to minimise waste generation and make the substances that do become waste easier to turn into new products. At the core of EU waste law is a general directive on waste (‘the Framework Directive on Waste’ or ‘FDW’) defining key concepts, establishing major principles, and allocating responsibilities. Other pieces of waste law either regulate specific waste streams, such as packaging waste, or specific forms of waste management, such as transboundary shipments or landfilling, which the chapter discusses in more detail.

The previous chapter analysed the role played by rights in the EU legal order and their impact on judicial review. This chapter is concerned with equality and the way in which it has been shaped by Union legislation and the Courts’ jurisprudence. The principle of equality and the prohibition of discrimination are found within a number of Treaty articles, but the ECJ held that these were merely specific enunciations of the general principle of equality as one of the fundamental principles of EU law, which must be observed by any court.

Integration of environmental flows into land, water, and energy management requires legislation, policies, and regulations. This chapter offers an overview of instruments available at local, regional, and national scales, and across political boundaries. Legislation and policies that explicitly regulate environmental flow provisions vary from country to country (e.g., the South African National Water Act, the Australian National Water Initiative). Rivers that cross international borders have received special attention in conventions and agreements (e.g., the Mekong River Agreement). The European Union Water Framework Directive (WFD) integrates water management and ecosystem conservation. International constitutions and treaties on natural resource management and ecosystem protection (e.g., the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands) offer support for the concept of environmental flows.