| Summary: | The EU Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EG) entered into force in the year 2000, with the purpose to enhance water quality in the EU and to guarantee a sustainable water provision for the future. This study focuses on the implementation of the Water Framework Directive in the Northern Baltic Sea drainage basin, Sweden. Sweden is divided into five river basin districts, of which five water authorities are responsible for water management and planning. Every sixth year an action program is written for each of the five river basin districts by the responsible water authority. In this study the development and implementation of the action program for the Northern Baltic Sea drainage basin are examined, with special focus on the communication between municipalities, the county administrative boards and the responsible water authority. Five officials from Uppsala, Stockholm, Heby and Knivsta municipalities, two officials from the Uppsala and Stockholm county administrative boards and one official from the water authority were interviewed about their work to implement the Water Framework Directive and the cooperation and communication around it. The study shows that shortcomings in cooperation and communication between the responsible authorities may hamper the successful implementation of the Water Framework Directive. On the one hand, the county boards and the water authority work closely together and have a continuous dialogue around the development of the action program. On the other hand, the officials from the municipalities are not a part of this tight cooperation and are largely excluded from the development of the action program. There is tendency of the officials from the municipality to doubt the action program and to criticize the suggested strategy for water management, whereas the officials from the county boards and the water authority strongly believe in the usefulness of the action program, which they have developed. The participants from the municipalities express that no clear plan is presented for the funding of the work. They find the time schedule unrealistic and point out that the action program lacks discussions on goal conflicts (in particular, the need to improve the economic situation of farmers is perceived to be in conflict with their planned tasks in the action program). In addition, the officials from the municipalities express that the information flows in the water management system are characterized by one way communication and that their local knowledge is not accounted for properly. In addition, the officials from the municipalities request that the action programme contain more detailed information on the local water bodiesand account for all available local data. In this commentary the participants express a believe that the demands in the action plan could be explained in more exact detail and backed up with evidence and data, i.e. of the consequences of actions in the area (such as emissions from industries or actions taken by the official). The participants from the municipalities also request enhanced contacts with national authorities. They complain that important information from national authorities (such as information on new regulations and guidelines)do not always reach the municipalities, which hampers their ability to act as guiding authorities in water management(as required by the action program).
|
|---|
