Prospects for learning in river management: exploring the initial implementation of the Water Framework Directive in a Swedish river basin

Abstract

This case study explores the initial implementation of the EU Water Framework Directive (WFD) in the Lule River basin, Sweden, examining how and to what extent administrative procedures enable learning through dialogue and stakeholder collaboration. Theorising on adaptive co-management and social learning is used to structure what is to be learnt, how and by whom. Qualitative content analyses of policy documents, responses from consultation procedures and interviews show that there are opportunities for stakeholder involvement and dialogue in organizational settings of various kinds, but as the number of affected interest is large and difficult to demarcate many interests lack a formal channel for influence. It is primarily through poorly attended Water Council meetings and during the consultation process prior to decisions on management plans that all affected interests can voice their opinions. Consultation processes represent one-way communication rather than dialogue and the ones examined are strongly focused on scientific rather than experience based knowledge. If language is to be used productively to assist the constitution of relevant knowledge in the implementation of the WFD, it is important to find ways of communication that can serve as a platform for common meaning making among a large number of diverse societal actors.

Keywords:

• social learning
• co-management
• river basin management
• Water Framework Directive

Acknowledgements

This study was conducted within the research program Policy Making for Adaptive Management of Natural Resources with financial support from the Swedish Research Council for Environment, Agricultural Sciences and Spatial Planning. The financial support is gratefully acknowledged. We would also like to thank all interviewees for sharing their experience in on-going water management, and reviewers for their constructive comments.

Notes

1. A river basin is an area bounded by heights in the terrain that make all water in the area eventually discharge into the recipient, in this case, the Bothnian Bay (Water Authority 2008, 7).

2. Attained learning will not be studied as it is too early in the administrative process to properly address it. A comprehensive comparative study by Mostert et al. (2007) however shows that stakeholders commonly benefit from participation in water management, e.g. in that their understanding of the problem and competing perspectives improve.

3. The seminal work by Galaz (2005) addresses distributional conflict and bargaining power when dealing with water problems in a river in the southern part of the country. The actors Galaz identifies as key to Swedish water politics – municipalities, the county administration, industry and various interest groups are addressed also in this study, yet from a different perspective.

4. The literature on ACM draws both upon scientific adaptive management and co-management research. Well-functioning co-management arrangements tend to become ACM arrangements over time (Berkes 2009).

5. For more information on qualitative content analysis, see Devine (2002) and Matti (2009).

6. The snowballing technique was used in the selection of interviewees, letting one subject recommend the interviewing of yet another subject who is deemed having valuable information on the topics for research. Interviewing new respondents continues until nothing new, of vital importance to the investigation, is said. The technique both has merits and shortcomings. One advantage is the absence of formal hierarchies. A risk is that the researcher can start ‘at the wrong end’, making the overall picture difficult to attain. Another risk relates to network analysis (not pursued here), suggesting that isolated actors can be overlooked (cf. Miles and Huberman 1994, Sandström 2009).