EEA Technical report No 4/2012

Territorial cohesion and water

management in Europe: the spatial perspective

ISSN 1725-2237
EEA Technical report No 4/2012

Territorial cohesion and water

management in Europe: the spatial perspective
Design: EEA
Layout: Rosendahl-Schultz grafisk/EEA
Cover photo: EEA

Legal notice
The contents of this publication do not necessarily reflect the official opinions of the European Commission
or other institutions of the European Union. Neither the European Environment Agency nor any person or
company acting on behalf of the Agency is responsible for the use that may be made of the information
contained in this report.

Copyright notice
© EEA, Copenhagen, 2012
Reproduction is authorised, provided the source is acknowledged, save where otherwise stated.

Information about the European Union is available on the Internet. It can be accessed through the Europa
server (www.europa.eu).

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2012

ISBN 978-92-9213-317-7
ISSN 1725-2237
doi:10.2800/49764

REG.NO. DK- 000244

European Environment Agency

Kongens Nytorv 6
1050 Copenhagen K
Denmark
Tel.: +45 33 36 71 00
Fax: +45 33 36 71 99
Web: eea.europa.eu
Enquiries: eea.europa.eu/enquiries
Contents

Contents

Acknowledgements..................................................................................................... 4
Executive summary..................................................................................................... 5
1 Introduction......................................................................................................... 12
1.1 The environmental dimension of territorial cohesion ��������������������������������������������12
1.2 The Water Framework Directive and territorial cohesion ���������������������������������������14
1.3 The role of river basin management plans............................................................18
1.4 Spatial planning in water management................................................................19
2 Integrating river basin planning and spatial planning ����������������������������������������� 22
2.1 Potential obstacles to the integration of spatial planning and water management.......23
2.2 Approaches that link spatial analysis and river basin planning ��������������������������������24
2.3 The role of spatial analysis in flood management...................................................34
2.4 The role of spatial analysis in drought and water scarcity management ...................34
3 Cohesion Policy and the Water Framework Directive: the spatial context............. 40
3.1 Interactions between Cohesion Policy and the Water Framework Directive................40
3.2 Key spending areas: water supply and wastewater treatment ��������������������������������41
3.3 Key spending areas: inland water way transport...................................................43
3.4 Examples of other investment projects that modify water bodies ���������������������������47
3.5 Cross-border and trans-national cooperation .......................................................53
4 Building cooperation across borders and in 'macro-regions' �������������������������������� 55
4.1 Shared river basins: the Albufeira Agreement.......................................................55
4.2 The Baltic Sea Regional Strategy: territorial cohesion in a macro‑region...................57
5 Addressing future challenges............................................................................... 60
5.1 Adapting to climate change................................................................................60
5.2 Land cover changes: agriculture.........................................................................60
5.3 Population shifts...............................................................................................61
6 Conclusions.......................................................................................................... 63
References................................................................................................................ 66
Appendix 1 Potential key elements of the environmental dimension
of territorial cohesion............................................................................ 68
Appendix 2 Planning new development: the IJmeeer Vision in the Netherlands...... 70
Appendix 3 Planning for future water consumption needs:
the Dublin Water Supply Project............................................................ 73
Appendix 4 Abbreviations ....................................................................................... 78

Territorial cohesion and water management in Europe: the spatial perspective 3

Acknowledgements

Acknowledgements

This report has been prepared by Gorm Dige (EEA). Environmental Planning, CEP) for their substantial
Comments and inputs were received from EEA contribution to this report. We would also like to
colleagues: Philippe Crouzet, Ronan Uhel, Branislav thank the following experts for their inputs to the
Olah, Beate Werner and Bo Jacobsen. We would report: Alice Belin, Nienke van der Burgt, Katalin
also like to thank Lewis Dijkstra (DG Regio) for his Császár, Guillermo Hernandez, Vanessa Leigh,
useful comments. Jennifer McGuinn (Milieu Ltd), Jonathan Baker
(CEP), Rasmus Klocker Larsen and Neil Powell
In addition we would like to thank Tony Zamparutti (SEI).
(Milieu Ltd) and Ric Eales (Collingwood

4 Territorial cohesion and water management in Europe: the spatial perspective

Executive summary

Executive summary

The scope Directive and the development and implementation

of River Basin Management Plans (RBMPs). It
This report considers the links between water considers links between Regional Policy (4) and
management in the EU — especially the water management in the EU, including the
implementation of the Water Framework Directive lessons from a spatial perspective. It further looks
(WFD) — and territorial cohesion (1), in the at cross‑country cooperation, a key element of
perspective of spatial analysis (2) and spatial both the WFD and territorial cohesion and finally
planning (3). It looks at the role of spatial analysis considers future challenges for implementation of
and planning for the implementation of the Directive the Directive and the development of RBMPs, in
as well as related provisions such as the Floods particular considering the spatial context.

Figure ES.1 Detailed framework providing an overview of the report

Territorial cohesion

Environmental
dimension of
territorial cohesion

Tools
Environmental/
Cohesion policy Water sustainability (e.g. IA, SEA,
Other Framework assets and EIA, GIS
sector Spending for Directive benefits mapping)
water sector
and
investments River basin
environ-
management
mental Spending in plans related
policies related
legislation:
fields:
inland waterways; Floods Directive Concepts, methods
hydropower and approaches

(e.g. spatial planning,

green infrastructure,
ecosystem servies)

(1) The concept of territorial cohesion builds bridges between economic effectiveness, social cohesion and ecological balance, putting
sustainable development at the heart of policy design (p. 3 in Green Paper on Territorial Cohesion). See: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/
LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2008:0616:FIN:EN:PDF for more information.
(2) See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spatial_analysis for more information.
(3) See http://glossary.eea.europa.eu/terminology/concept_html?term=spatial%20planning for more information.
(4) See http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/index_en.cfm for more information.

Territorial cohesion and water management in Europe: the spatial perspective 5

Executive summary

The issue approach on top of the existing administrative units

such as the Bundesländer, creates overlaps and
The spatial dimension is particularly important for potential conflicts in the jurisdictions and interests
water management. The centre piece of EU water of key actors. While the new system addresses the
legislation, the WFD, has a strong territorial context previous problem of externalities that can occur
and it is implemented through river basin districts, when water pollution or other problems created in
which are based on natural geographic catchment one territory affects the environment in another, it
areas rather than existing administrative boundaries. requires a new level of interaction and negotiations
among administrative units. The Directive thus
A review of academic literature and initial work to creates a new element of complexity. In Germany,
develop RBMPs shows that the links to these plans these difficulties have been addressed through
and spatial analysis and planning are weak in many coordination mechanisms among the Bundesländer
countries. One reason is that water management and that share RBDs.
spatial planning have traditionally been carried out
by separate structures and follow different traditions. Another practical issue is that spatial planning and
A practical obstacle is that spatial planning usually river basin planning follow different timescales
follows administrative boundaries, while RBMPs, in in most countries. However, this is related to a
principal, follow topographic/geographic boundaries. broader issue, the lack of a legislative or policy
framework at national or regional level to bring the
The governance structures in the countries two planning processes together. A further problem
face differing political, socio-economic and that has been identified in recent studies is the lack
historical contexts which affect the way in which of shared knowledge and sufficient resources for
administrative systems are managed. In Italy, for integration.
example, regional borders only match those of river
basin districts for the two large islands of Sardinia In practice it appears that spatial planning has not
and Sicily. Planning along natural geographic been strongly linked with the first round of RBMPs,
boundaries is a new approach at EU level and completed in December 2009. A review of six draft
in many countries as well. In contrast, spatial RBMPs (2009) found that less than half have strong
planning is often a long-standing process. In some links with spatial planning. A review of countries
countries, such as the United Kingdom, spatial in the Baltic Sea region found that spatial planning
planning is hierarchical, with national or regional and water management remained separate systems
plans providing a framework for those at the local in most countries; moreover, the implementation of
level. the WFD had not brought stronger integration of the
two.
From an environmental perspective, planning for
administrative areas that do not match natural These results show that much more work is needed
geographic boundaries can create externalities: costs to link spatial and river basin planning across
can fall on those who do not benefit, as in the case of Europe. At the same time, efforts to strengthen
water pollution from agriculture and industry from these links are underway at national and regional
one territory (5) that flows downstream to others; levels. Several trans-national cooperation projects
and benefits may go to those outside the territory supported by EU Cohesion Policy funds have
who have not paid for them — this can be the case brought together EU regions to develop new
for ecosystem services such as those provided by methods and approaches.
forests in one territory that regulate floodwaters
downstream.
Key findings and potential solutions
Planning along natural boundaries such as river
basins provides a way to address these externalities. Potential synergies between spatial planning and
In practice, River Basin Districts (RBDs) boundaries RBMPs can be strengthened. Spatial planning has
co-exist with existing planning administrative a series of characteristics and approaches that can
areas nonetheless. A study of the application of support the development and implementation of
the Directive in Germany notes that this new RBMPs. For example, spatial planning:

(5) See http://inspire-forum.jrc.ec.europa.eu/pg/pages/view/1810/administrative-units for more information.

6 Territorial cohesion and water management in Europe: the spatial perspective

Executive summary

• brings a long-term, strategic focus covering large the likely increases in population growth and hence
areas, similar to the perspective of the WFD; water demand. The Dublin City Development Plan
• influences a broad range of economic sectors that 2011–2017 (6) forecasts that Dublin's population will
affect river basins through water consumption continue to grow over the medium term; there is no
and pollution as well as the modification of water explicit consideration of efforts to focus population
bodies; growth in other areas, spatial or otherwise.
• influences the type and location of new polluting
activities and thus water status; The second spatial consequence stems from the
• can also be used to translate water management footprint and effects of the Greater Dublin Water
goals — such as measures for more efficient Supply project; these are considered within the draft
water consumption — into local government plan of the project (2008) and the accompanying
action, for example for new housing SEA (SEA, 2008). The draft plan and SEA consider
developments; 10 different options for the provision of water
• shares a number of key tools with river basin for Dublin: these include greater abstraction of
management planning, including Strategic groundwater, desalination of water from the Irish
Environmental Assessment (SEA) and public Sea, abstraction from a variety of surface waters and
participation; a range of different pipeline and storage options.
• is a key tool in addressing flood risks, drought Figure ES.2 shows the complete list of project
risks and rural development. options (option F is the final project).

The role of spatial analysis is, for example, Within the Greater Dublin Water Supply Draft Plan
illustrated in the Dublin metropolitan region each of these ten options was presented spatially
that has prepared a plan for a major new water and evaluated to understand the direct economic
supply system. There are two major spatial issues costs of the measures, with a focus on the costs
related to the proposed scheme; the first of which of infrastructure development. The Strategic
is Greater Dublin's growth over the medium term. Environment Assessment also identified a range
In determining the projected water demand the of environmental objectives based on the key
relevant regional plans were analysed to predict environmental issues in the likely affected area

Figure ES.2 The Dublin new water supply system

(6) Dublin City Development Plan 2011–2017. See http://www.dublincitydevelopmentplan.ie for more details.

Territorial cohesion and water management in Europe: the spatial perspective 7

Executive summary

and used these objectives to appraise each of the One important factor throughout sustainable flood
project options. The scale and impact of abstraction management is the restoration of inherent territorial
were considered for each option, including features and the use of their ecosystem services,
likely impacts on downstream water quality and including floodwater retention. This approach
quantity. However the presentation of the spatial consequently uses environmental means to protect
consequences of the various options could be economic values.
considered to be limited beyond water abstraction.
Several approaches can be used to strengthen
Efforts have been made to build bridges between links between spatial analysis and river basin
land use planning and river basin planning. There planning. RBMPs are the central mechanism for the
are important links between spatial planning and implementation of EU water legislation. These plans,
RBMPs. Although the two systems do not appear however, need to ensure two levels of integration:
to be strongly linked at present, case studies have
highlighted examples of approaches for integration. • vertical integration with a range of EU
requirements, with planning in other Member
In Scotland, for example, government guidance sets States in the same RBD and also with
out steps for the integration of the two. The links administrations at regional and local levels;
are also strong in the Netherlands, where spatial • horizontal integration among participating
planning is used in a new initiative for flood risk institutions and with stakeholders.
management, 'Room for the River'. In the Flanders
region of Belgium, as well, spatial planning is a part Figure ES.3 illustrates the different elements to be
of the SIGMA Plan to identify flood areas for the addressed in the preparation of RBMPs.
Scheldt River (this plan is carried out in cooperation
with the Netherlands, as the two countries share Moreover, the RBMPs need to bring together a range
the Scheldt estuary). In both the Belgium and the of methods, including spatial planning, climate
Netherland cases, the flood management approach change adaptation, flood risk management, and
is strongly compatible with the environmental drought and water scarcity management. They can
dimension of territorial cohesion. One important also address concepts such as green infrastructure
factor throughout sustainable flood management is and ecosystem services. Thus, a broader, more
the restoration of inherent territorial features and the integrative approach is needed for the revision of
use of their ecosystem services, including floodwater RBMPs in 2015.
retention. This approach consequently uses
environmental means to protect economic values. A range of tools can support the task of preparing
and implementing RBMPs:
The case studies illustrate two key issues. A first
element is the growing importance of sustainable • One instrument is SEA, which can be used to
approaches to flood risk management, such as the ensure that spatial plans address water goals,
re-opening of flood plains and other actions to give and that RBMPs incorporate environmental
'room' to rivers. In many cases, such approaches will goals in spatial plans; this mechanism can also
also expand areas for biodiversity. A second point is ensure that related plans, including spatial
that the Floods Directive, with its requirement for planning and the operational programmes for
the mapping of flood risks and flood hazards, will Cohesion Policy, are compatible with RBMPs.
further strengthen the spatial dimension of EU water The environmental impact assessment (EIA)
legislation and also require greater use of spatial of major projects needs to ensure that these
tools. Consequently, there will be a greater need for are compatible with RBMPs and will not cause
spatial analysis and for links with spatial planning failure for reaching good status of water bodies
in the second round of RBMPs, due in 2015, as these by 2015. Moreover, new tools, such as territorial
are to include flood risk planning and also address impact assessment (TIA) and water impact
further issues, including water scarcity and droughts assessment (WIA) can strengthen SEA and EIA
as well as climate change impacts and adaptation. methods.

8 Territorial cohesion and water management in Europe: the spatial perspective

Executive summary

Figure ES.3 River basin management plans: a framework for integration

Vertical integration, e.g. Horizontal integration, e.g.

EU institutions Cohesion Policy
Other Member States Spatial policies
(for cross-border RBDs) Coordination and conflict resolution
National mechanisms among institutions
Regional Stakeholder participation
Local

River basin management plan

Tools, e.g. Concepts, methods and

Economic analysis approaches, e.g.
Forecasts and scenarios for Spatial planning
climate, population, other factors Green infrastructure
Regional environmental Ecosystem services
characterisation Climate adaptation
SEA/EIA Flood risk management
Water accounting Drought and water scarcity
management

• Another approach is to enhance mechanisms • Regional environmental characterisation (REC) can

for integration. This can be done, for example, provide the information and the tool to assess
through voluntary guidance, an approach spatially the environmental impact of European
used at regional scale in France, where for policies at the regional level. Environmental
example the authority for the Adour-Garonne characterisation of territories can potentially
RBD has prepared a guidance document for provide baseline information about the
local authorities, for the integration of water environmental and natural assets, for example
management issues in urban planning. A further water of a specific region that makes it unique
method is to use a programme or initiative as or important and supports territorial identity
a mechanism for integration. This is seen in which would also help inform future policy like
France where the national programme for green the WFD. The major axes of the assessment were
infrastructure is to be implemented through the atmosphere, water and soil quality.
spatial planning system and should in turn be
linked to the RBMPs.

Territorial cohesion and water management in Europe: the spatial perspective 9

Executive summary

• With outcomes from water accounting along with though other authorities and stakeholders have the
spatial information, three categories of outputs opportunity to participate in the overall process but
are now implemented and produce results not in the decisions. An 'interactive approach' on the
from prototype to pilot levels of integration: other hand, in which participation is much broader:
a) Water balances at monthly level at 'statistical other authorities and stakeholders contribute to the
unit' level, secondary aggregated at sub-basins definition of the problem and the identification and
levels ('territories of reference'), that are the implementation of solutions. The document notes
basis for detailed water use indicators; b) water that different approaches may be used in separate
quality accounts (7) at monthly level at 'statistical contexts within the same country.
unit' level, secondary aggregated at sub-basins
levels ('territories of reference'), that are the Cohesion Policy has major influence on water
basis for detailed water quality indicators; management in EU. Cohesion Policy is a central
and c) representative stratified statistics of the instrument for territorial cohesion at the EU scale,
relationships and trends category of pressure and the actions it finances will affect river basins
versus observation, at sub-catchment levels. and water bodies throughout the EU. A previous
A category being, for example, the 'intensive European Environment Agency (EEA) study
agriculture' or 'urban' activities. This last output showed that the EU Cohesion Policy funds have
is not water accounting in a narrow or strict sense played an important role in building wastewater
but constitutes a closely related side-product of treatment in the poorer regions of two Member
the water accounts implementation. The water States, Spain and Italy, and that in the current
accounts support The Blueprint to Safeguard spending cycle (2007–2013) the funds have
Europe's Waters (8) and can be used to quantify allocated significant resources in this area, in
how much water flows in and out of river basins. particular in the EU-12 Member States (EEA, 2009).
This will provide the basic essential information
which is largely missing today to optimise water The spatial dimension of Cohesion Policy is
uses at river basin level and look at alternatives, illustrated through a set of case studies. A review
in particular considering the material and virtual of spending on wastewater treatment in Estonia
water flows between catchments. extends the analysis in the 2009 EEA report and
shows that river basin planning has played a role
The tools discussed here provide an indication in identifying the investments financed through
of the environmental challenges facing Europe in Cohesion Policy.
coming years. Through their approach based on
natural geographic areas, the RBMPs under the A case study from Hungary looks at the plan
WFD offer the opportunity to address many of these to improve inland navigation along Hungarian
elements in an integrated approach. The spatial stretches of the Danube, highlighting potential
perspective will be increasingly important for the impacts on natural values of the river; this
success of RBMPs in coming rounds. The approach example is important as projects are underway or
of territorial cohesion will also be vital in linking in planning along other stretches of the Danube
actions for water management closely with those as well, and inland navigation more generally
in other policy areas that affect Europe's water is promoted at EU level as a freight mode that
environment. can reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in
comparison to road transport. The recent agreement
Strengthening the links between spatial planning calls for a balance between navigation plans and
and river basin planning can nonetheless be a environmental protection along in the Danube river
complex process, as successful methods need to be basin; its results will depend in part on the effects in
developed within the context of planning systems. spatial terms.
The Common Implementation Strategy (CIS)
guidance document on RBMP planning makes a Two other case studies show how the environmental
distinction between 'rational instrument' planning impacts of projects financed through Cohesion
on the one hand, which is top-down planning, Policy have been reduced through review and

(7) Quality accounting is an experimental approach of resource accounting. For most uses a quantity is a resource only if its quality
allows the uses. For more information see Section 2.2.4, Water accounting.
(8) See http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/blueprint/index_en.htm for more details.

10 Territorial cohesion and water management in Europe: the spatial perspective

Executive summary

discussion. A plan to improve water quality in cross-country cooperation. These two strategies
Lake Balaton was restructured to emphasise positive cover economic, social and environmental
impacts on the Kis-Balaton wetlands area; in the dimensions and they are seen as practical measures
other study, the Jucar-Vinalopó water transfer for the implementation of territorial cohesion. At
project in Spain was modified to reduce effects on the same time, they coincide with geographic areas
water bodies. under EU legislation; the Baltic Sea is designated a
European marine region under the Marine Strategy
Cohesion Policy has also financed a range of Framework Directive (MSFD), while the Danube
cross-border and trans-national projects for water catchment area is the largest RBD under the WFD.
management: several of these have sought to While the strategies are at early stages, they can
strengthen spatial analysis in RBMPs and in flood provide an instrument for strengthening links
risk management. between Cohesion Policy, water management and
other EU policy areas.
These various examples have shown the importance
of Cohesion Policy on several levels: financing can What are the future challenges? RBMPs are to be
support the implementation of EU water legislation; revised every six years, and the first revision in 2015
at the same time, many projects financed through is to incorporate a range of issues, including flood
Cohesion Policy will affect water bodies and their risk management under the Floods Directive as well
impacts, including their spatial effects, need to as climate change adaptation. These new elements
be assessed before programmes and projects are point to the need to introduce longer term planning
approved. While the two policy areas show some and horizons into RBMPs and the related spatial
level of integration, further efforts are needed to analysis.
strengthen their coherence; spatial analysis may
have an important role to play in such efforts. Among the issues to be addressed are:

Cooperation on water management among countries • changes in population, as seen in France's

is essential. The RBDs set up under the WFD fast‑growing south-west;
cross national boundaries; indeed, 'international' • climate change impacts, such as higher
districts cover about 60 % of EU territory. Several temperatures and reduced precipitation forecast
major districts, such as the Rhine and the Danube, for much of southern Europe;
bring together several European countries. The • changes in the agriculture and energy sectors,
international RBDs create a new dimension for such as the rising cultivation of bioenergy
territorial cohesion among countries and regions, crops in Europe as well as plans for new, small
one that emphasises the connections along hydropower plants.
geographic boundaries and the need for cooperation
on shared ecosystems. These changes will need to be addressed through
spatial analysis and also via spatial planning. As
The Albufeira Agreement between Spain and mentioned previously regarding the Adour-Garonne
Portugal illustrates the cooperation mechanism for RBD in south-west France, for example, a recent
river basins shared between these two countries. guidance document discusses approaches to link
While this Agreement was reached in 1998, some river basin issues into urban planning, for example
of the practical steps for its implementation have to contain sprawl, especially in areas subject
proceeded slowly, for example with the creation of a to flooding. In Ireland and in the Netherlands,
joint secretariat only in 2008. however, major plans to accommodate expected
population growth suggest that further efforts
The 2009 Baltic Sea Regional Strategy and the 2010 are needed to ensure their links with river basin
Danube Strategy are broad-based approaches for planning.

Territorial cohesion and water management in Europe: the spatial perspective 11

Introduction

1 Introduction

This report reviews the links between the WFD the environmental dimension of territorial cohesion
and territorial cohesion. Along with the WFD, the is generally poorly understood and needs to be
report also considers the Floods Directive and refers put on equal terms with the economic and social
to other European Union water legislation. The elements of the concept. Indeed, without a strong
analysis also considers the EU Cohesion Policy. It enunciation of the environmental dimension of
takes a pragmatic approach, by addressing several territorial cohesion, this concept could represent
areas where territorial cohesion, EU Cohesion Policy a step backwards in terms of European efforts for
and the WFD intersect, with the overall goal of sustainable development.
identifying ways that the EU can move forward in
terms of putting the environmental dimension of The previous study highlighted that there is no one
territorial cohesion into practice. Throughout the definition of territorial cohesion and is often used
report, the spatial perspective and spatial planning throughout the EU and its Member States with
provide a lens for analysis. differing shades of meaning. However, the previous
work recommended that territorial cohesion should:
Chapter 2 looks at the role of spatial analysis and
planning for the implementation of the Directive • foster a more balanced and harmonious
and the development and implementation of RBMPs development of the European Union;
in more detail. Chapter 3 considers links between • ensure that its citizens were able to use and
Cohesion Policy and water management in the EU, benefit from the inherent features of their
including the lessons from a spatial perspective. territories;
Chapter 4 looks at cross-country cooperation, a key • encompass the sharing of environmental
element of both the WFD and territorial cohesion. responsibility and benefits among territories and
Chapter 5 then considers future challenges for throughout the EU;
the implementation of the Directive and the • incorporate managing shared spaces, and
development of RBMPs, in particular considering addressing common concerns whilst working out
the spatial context. solutions for such environmental problems as
pollution, water management and mitigation of
and adaptation to climate change;
1.1 The environmental dimension of • include the preservation of natural assets and the
territorial cohesion protection of natural areas as well as protecting
the local ability to maximise gains from the
With the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty on territorial capital — implicit in this are the ideas
1 December 2009, territorial cohesion, along with of resource efficiency and ecological balance;
economic and social cohesion, became a goal of • recognise local–regional–global linkages in
the EU as identified in the previous EU treaty considering the environmental facet of territorial
(Title XVIII). This part of the Treaty mentions the cohesion.
role of structural funds and the cohesion fund,
but does not clearly define 'territorial cohesion'. To ensure that sustainable development is pursued
However, the Green Paper on Territorial Cohesion throughout Europe, the concept of territorial
states (p. 3) that: 'The concept of territorial cohesion cohesion needs to incorporate the idea of sustainable
builds bridges between economic effectiveness, development — including the environmental
social cohesion and ecological balance, putting dimension.
sustainable development at the heart of policy
design.' Much has been written and discussed about the
need for a definition of territorial cohesion, but this
A previous study published by the EEA on has provided an elusive goal given the different
territorial cohesion (EEA, 2010c) highlighted that perspectives. Perhaps a more pragmatic approach

12 Territorial cohesion and water management in Europe: the spatial perspective

Introduction

is to focus on the process of achieving territorial This approach highlights the environmental
cohesion rather than its definition. As an initial dimension of territorial cohesion. It builds on
proposal, the previous study identified essential previous work, in particular by the European
elements of an environment and sustainability base Commission (EC, 2008a), as well as the idea
around the elements of territorial cohesion described that territorial cohesion represents 'the spatial
in the Green Paper: representation of sustainability' (Camagni, 2007).
Throughout all definitions is the idea that territorial
• harmonious and sustainable development; cohesion focuses on the spatial dimensions and
• inherent features of territories: natural features implications of European policies.
are protected for future generations;
• concentration: addressing differences in density Table 1.1 provides an overview of the environmental
and other natural features; dimension of territorial cohesion. Table 1.3 expands
• connecting territories: strengthening positive on these points and includes potential criteria to
natural connections and interactions between evaluate the environmental dimension of territorial
territories; cohesion in the light of the WFD and the Floods
• cooperation: overcoming division. Directive. Several case studies in the following
chapters use the elements of territorial cohesion for
analysis.

Table 1.1 Potential key elements of the environmental dimension of territorial cohesion

Green Paper on Territorial Cohesion key elements Potential key elements of the environmental
of territorial cohesion dimension of territorial cohesion
Harmonious development: Harmonious and sustainable development:
1. Building bridges between economic effectiveness, 1. Achieving sustainable development, and thus
social cohesion and ecological balance integrating economic, social and environmental
policy goals and actions
2. Putting sustainable development at the heart of
policy design 2. Environmental limits and carrying capacity
(as a constraint on economic growth)
3. Utilising a high quality environment as a good and
service (e.g. recreation, agriculture, tourism)
Inherent features of territories: citizens able to use Inherent features of territories: natural features are
the inherent features of their territories: protected for future generations:
1. Transforming diversity into an asset 1. Maintaining/improving natural capital — maintaining
local features and environmental quality
2. Making best use of territorial assets
2. Maintaining and enhancing current ecosystem
(three specific types of region are identified which can
services and recognising future needs
face particular development challenges: mountain
regions, island regions, and the 18 sparsely populated 3. Recognising vulnerability to environmental risks
regions, all rural and almost all border regions)
Concentration: overcoming differences in density: Concentration: addressing differences in density and
other natural features:
1. Avoiding excessive concentrations of growth
1. Addressing environmental problems related to
2. Facilitating access to the increasing returns of
concentration (e.g. pollution, water needs), including
agglomeration in all territories
negative effects within and among regions
3. Recognising that whilst most economic activity is
2. Recognising environmental/ecosystem services
concentrated in towns and cities, rural areas remain
an essential part of the EU providing most of the 3. Concentrated spatial patterns are better performing
natural resources and natural areas than low-density patterns (because of better energy
performance of buildings, and a possibility to develop
4. Ensuring sustainable territorial development
public transport facilities)
— strengthening economic competitiveness
and capacity for growth, while respecting the
preservation of natural assets and ensuring social
cohesion

Territorial cohesion and water management in Europe: the spatial perspective 13

Introduction

Table 1.1 Potential key elements of the environmental dimension of territorial cohesion (cont.)

Green Paper on Territorial Cohesion key elements Potential key elements of the environmental
of territorial cohesion dimension of territorial cohesion
Connecting territories: overcoming distance or Connecting territories: strengthening positive natural
'strengthening' connections: connections and interactions between territories:
1. Ensuring good intermodal transport connections 1. Understanding environmental connections between
and within regions, e.g. water, materials, energy, and
2. Adequate access to services (e.g. health care,
making these connections more sustainable
education and sustainable energy, broadband
Internet access, reliable connections to energy 2. Recognising inputs and outputs (interdependences)
networks, and strong links between business and of environmental (and ecosystem) services within
research centres) and between regions at different scales
3. Recognising/avoiding negative environmental effects
from one region to another (e.g. pollution, climate
change — flooding, droughts, fires and biodiversity
loss)
4. Avoiding the environmental impacts of connectivity
(e.g. pollution, habitat loss, landscape intrusion)
Cooperation: overcoming division: Cooperation: overcoming division:
1. Addressing problems of connectivity and 1. Cooperation on implementing EU environmental laws
concentration through strong cooperation at different and policy at all levels (national, regional, local);
levels learning from different regions; supporting regions
to meet common environmental standards. This
2. Ensuring policy responses on variable geographical
section might encompass the 'traditional' view of
scales (e.g. neighbouring local authorities in different
environment in territorial cohesion and Cohesion
countries and between neighbouring countries)
Policy
3. Addressing environmental problems which do
2. Recognising the importance of natural as well as just
not respect borders and require cooperation
administrative boundaries in territorial governance
(e.g. problems associated with climate change)
4. Governance plays a major role in ensuring territorial
cohesion

1.2 The Water Framework Directive and to address major problems. These measures are
territorial cohesion to bring the surface water bodies in the district
to 'good status' by 2015; good status for surface
In 2000, the EU adopted the WFD (9) which sets waters involves both chemical characteristics (good
up the future frame for regulation and protection chemical status) and the health of their ecosystems
of water resources in Europe, comprising lakes, (good ecological status); groundwater bodies should
streams, coastal waters and groundwater (Table.1.2). attain good chemical status and good quantitative
The WFD summarises much of the European status (in that abstractions should not exceed
experience of pollution, water quality and natural aquifer recharge). The directive allows only
ecosystem management, and it represents a new limited possibility for extending the 2015 deadline,
and comprehensive way of source-to-sink thinking, achieving a lower standard or allowing deterioration
where the primary goals are to achieve the desired in conditions. For example, a failure to achieve good
quality of the water resources, to ensure that there is status is allowed under specific conditions; one is
enough clean water for different uses. that any modifications are of 'overriding public
interest'.
RBMPs must be prepared for each RBD and should
bring together an analysis of the characteristics of A previous EEA 2010 study on the Territorial
the water bodies with a programme of measures dimension of environmental sustainability (10), which

(9) Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community
action in the field of water policy (European Commission, 2000).
(10) See http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/the-territorial-dimension-of-environmental-sustainability for more information.

14 Territorial cohesion and water management in Europe: the spatial perspective

Introduction

Table 1.2 Timetable for implementing the Water Framework Directive

Year Actions
2000 Water Framework Directive comes into force
2001 Common Implementation Strategy published
2003 Transposition into national legislation designation of RBDs and competent authorities
2004 For each river basin:
- Analysis of the natural characteristics, pressures and human impacts
- Economic analysis of water use
- Registration of areas needing special protection
2006 Operational water monitoring programmes
2008 Public consultation on proposed RBMPs
2009 River basin management plans with programmes of measures finalised
2009–2015 Implementation of programmes of measures
2010 Water pricing policies in place to promote sustainable use of water
2015 Achievement of good status for all surface waters and ground waters

reviewed the WFD in terms of the environmental The 2010 study also looked at the EU Floods
dimension of territorial cohesion, identified a broad Directive, which is closely related to the WFD and
range of synergies between the two. These include which itself has strong synergies with territorial
the following: cohesion. For example, the Floods Directive calls
for mapping and planning to address flood risks
• the Directive establishes governance by natural to protect human life, the environment, cultural
geographical units, river basin districts; heritage and economic activities. Further details
• it calls on Member States to cooperate on can be found in Table 1.3 which is based on the EEA
cross‑boundary RBDs; 2010 study and provides a review of the WFD and
• the Directive establishes a planning system at the the Floods Directive against the key elements of the
level of RBDs, and calls for public participation in environmental dimension of territorial cohesion.
river basin planning;
• it establishes the principle of the recovery of the Measures proposed by the WFD are explicitly
costs of water services, 'including environmental territorial in nature, for example the use of river
and resource costs' — this effectively recognises basins as the key planning unit, and managing
the value of ecosystem services. groundwater at risk, etc. The WFD also has

Table 1.3 Review of the Water Framework Directive and the Floods Directive against the key
elements of environmental dimensions of territorial cohesion

The tables below use the following scoring system for the 'overall assessment' against each of the five elements
of the environmental dimensions of territorial cohesion. This is based on a subjective assessment of the degree
to which the policy, etc. is considered synergistic or conflicting with the potential criteria listed in Appendix 1 to
evaluate the environmental dimension of territorial cohesion.

J Overall potentially synergistic

K Overall potentially neutral

L Overall potentially conflicting

Territorial cohesion and water management in Europe: the spatial perspective 15

Introduction

Table 1.3 Review of the Water Framework Directive and the Floods Directive against the key
elements of environmental dimensions of territorial cohesion (cont.)

Elements of the Policy area: Water Framework Directive Overall

environmental assessment
dimensions
of territorial
cohesion
Harmonious
and sustainable
Potential synergies
The central aim of the WFD is to 'protect and restore clean waters across
J
development
Europe and ensure its long-term sustainable use'. Article 4(1) of the Directive
(Directive 2000/60/EC) includes the target for Member States to achieve good
status in all bodies of surface water and groundwater by 2015.
A key aspect of the directive is the aim for water services (clean drinking water,
irrigation, hydropower, wastewater treatment, etc.) to be charged at a price
which fully reflects the services provided. This explicitly recognises the value of
clean, sustainably managed water resources as a valuable good/service.
By seeking to charge the real cost (including externalities) of water use,
the WFD implicitly recognises the environmental limits of water resource
exploitation.
Potential conflicts
None identified.
Inherent features
of territories
Potential synergies
Fundamental to the WFD is the identification of 'water bodies' by Member
J
States. The designation of water bodies should consider the location, physical
characteristics and differences, as well as pressures such as extraction,
pollution, etc.
Inherent in the river basin scale management approach is the consideration of
interdependencies and relationships between territories.
The WFD proposal of inter-calibration of water ecosystem status across Europe
has the stated intention of enabling a common understanding of ecological
status given the different nature of water bodies between Member States and
regions (e.g. mountain lake compared to a tidal river).
Potential conflicts
None identified.
Concentration Potential synergies
The WFD requires Member States to designate artificial and heavily modified
J
water bodies, in which good ecological potential will need to be met
(differs from good ecological status targeted in other water bodies). Many of
these are likely to be within urban areas.
The incorporation of economic principles and water pricing in line with
environmental services provided is likely to help address some of the
water-related environmental pressures associated with higher concentrated
development, particularly water pollution, water resource scarcity, etc.
Potential conflicts
None identified.
Connecting
territories
Potential synergies
An explicit and key aspect of the WFD is the management of water issues at
J
the river basin scale. This recognises the inherent 'shared' nature of Europe's
water resources, rivers, lakes and seas.
Implementation of the WFD in relation to an international RBD should be
coordinated between those Member States in the district. Understanding and
managing inter-regional and trans-national water pollution/extraction will be an
important aspect of this cooperative approach.
Potential conflicts
None identified.

16 Territorial cohesion and water management in Europe: the spatial perspective

Introduction

Table 1.3 Review of the Water Framework Directive and the Floods Directive against the key
elements of environmental dimensions of territorial cohesion (cont.)

Elements of the Policy area: Water Framework Directive Overall

environmental assessment
dimensions
of territorial
cohesion
Cooperation Potential synergies
The consideration of natural boundaries and areas (in the form of RBDs and
J
water bodies) is a cornerstone of the WFD.
A cooperative approach to implementation is also a fundamental aspect of
implementation of the WFD.
Potential conflicts
None identified.
Elements of the Policy area: Floods Directive Overall
environmental assessment
dimensions
of territorial
cohesion
Harmonious
and sustainable
Potential synergies
The Floods Directive (Directive 2007/60/EC) requires Member States to
J
development
assess, map and plan for the management of flood risks in all water courses
and coastal areas in their territory. Flood risk assessment includes risks to
the environment, together with human health, cultural heritage and economic
activity. Flood risk management plans (to be development by 2015) should
focus on prevention, protection and preparedness.
Potential conflicts
None identified.
Inherent features
of territories
Potential synergies
Flood risk assessment under the directive is required to be undertaken at a
J
RBD and associated coastal area scale. Coordination is expected with RBMPs,
developed under the WFD. Accounting for interdependencies and relationships
between territories should be an inherent aspect of environmental management
at this scale.
The directive calls for flood risk management plans to be periodically reviewed,
and if necessary updated to take account of the impacts of climate change
on the occurrence of floods (e.g. paragraph 14, Article 4(2), Article 14(4),
Article 16).
Potential conflicts
In some cases flood risk management protection infrastructure may impact
upon protected areas/inherent features of territories, although this will depend
on implementation in individual Member States (and the intention of the
directive is that environmental features will be protected).
Concentration Potential synergies
The directive explicitly refers to urban floods (paragraph 10).
J
Flood risks associated with higher urban concentration (increased runoff,
reduced attenuation, etc.) are a significant issue in many urban areas.
Reducing flood risks may also address other environmental problems associated
with urban areas, such as water pollution (by reducing runoff).
Potential conflicts
None identified.

Territorial cohesion and water management in Europe: the spatial perspective 17

Introduction

Table 1.3 Review of the Water Framework Directive and the Floods Directive against the key
elements of environmental dimensions of territorial cohesion (cont.)

Elements of the Policy area: Water Framework Directive Overall

environmental assessment
dimensions
of territorial
cohesion
Connecting
territories
Potential synergies
See entry under Inherent features of territories.
J
Paragraph 13 of the directive explicitly recognises the territorial connections in
relation to flooding (e.g. river corridors, coastal areas, international lakes). It
states that 'Member States should refrain from taking measures or engaging in
actions which significantly increase the risk of flooding in other Member States,
unless these measures have been coordinated and an agreed solution has been
found among the Member States concerned.'
Potential conflicts
None identified.
Cooperation Potential synergies
As noted, flood risk assessment and management is required to be at the
J
RBD and coastal zone level, and the directive explicitly promotes/requires
coordinated activity between and within Member States. For example
paragraph 6 of the directive requires coordination between Member States (and
cooperation with third countries) in recognition of the UN Convention on the
Protection and use of Transboundary Water Courses and International Lakes.
Flood risk management information exchange is a key aspect of the strategy to
support implementation (11).
Potential conflicts
None identified.

significant territorial impacts, through improving sustainable development — social, economic and
environmental quality in rural and urban regions, environmental progress — are fundamental to both
though agricultural regions will need to reduce regional spatial strategies and RBMPs. RBMPs can
pollution and urban areas will require better sewers therefore influence these regional spatial strategies
and water filtration systems. and other development plans, and in turn be
influenced by them.
For example in parts of England, major growth is
proposed where water resources and the ability to
handle increased volumes of sewage effluent, are 1.3 The role of river basin management
already constrained. Future development needs plans
to be planned carefully so that it does not result
in further pressure on the water environment The WFD introduces a new water planning cycle
and compromise the WFD objectives. Planning with RBMPs published in 2009 and subsequently
bodies and authorities hence need to think about at six-yearly intervals. The Directive specifies
the implications of proposed development and the key elements of the RBMPs (see Box 1.1 for
land use change on water, including beyond their a summary). These management systems are set
local authority boundary. The RBMPs required by up where all regions in Europe are divided into
the WFD are important new regional strategies hydrologically-based river basins, and for each of
that complement other regional strategies such these water management plans are to be developed.
as regional spatial strategies. The three pillars of There is particular focus on the control of emission

(11) See, for example, Promoting early action, Work programme and mandate 2008–2009, Working group F on Floods (as agreed by
the water directors, 29–30 November 2007). See http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/wfd/library?l=/framework_directive/floods_
programme/wg_f_floods/workprogramme_2008-9/_EN_1.0_&a=d for more details.

18 Territorial cohesion and water management in Europe: the spatial perspective

Introduction

• potential conflicts between inland navigation

Box 1.1 Key elements of river basin and ecosystem protection in rivers;
management plans • economic and social demands for water supply.
• mapping of:
As noted in Table 1.4, the case studies in the
– eco-regions;
following chapters address some of these potential
– surface water bodies and groundwater
bodies; conflicts; they also consider areas for potential
– protected areas; synergy arising from the WFD.
– monitoring networks.
• summary of significant pressures and impact The area of cooperation is particularly important
of human activity on surface and groundwater for RBMPs, both within countries as well as among
bodies; them. About 60 % of EU territory is covered by
• environmental objectives; RBDs that cross at least one EU or international
• economic analysis; border. Here, Member States are called on to
• summary of the programme of measures; cooperate on water management with the aim of
• register of more detailed programmes and
producing a single RBMP. For the Danube and
management plans;
Rhine rivers, common RBMPs have indeed been
• summary of public information and
consultation measures. prepared. For the Danube, Europe's largest river
basin, the common RBMP is then articulated by
international sub-basin plans as well as national
RBMPs.

of contaminants from industries, households and

agriculture to water bodies, and detailed action 1.4 Spatial planning in water
plans and monitoring systems should be developed management
in order to achieve the 2015 goals.
In the European Spatial Development Perspective
As can be seen from Box 1.1, mapping and thus (ESDP) document (12) agreed at the informal
spatial analysis are an important part of the plans, Council of Ministers responsible for spatial
at least in terms of characterising RBDs. Another planning in Potsdam, May 1999, risk of water
is the identification of environmental objectives, resources is mentioned as one of the critical spatial
an economic analysis, and the development development issues in Europe. An integrated
of a programme of measures to achieve the spatial development policy both for preventing
environmental objectives. As indicated in the last floods and for combating water shortages
bullet point in Box 1.1, public information and is considered important although these two
consultation are also important elements of the phenomena are of differing hydrological, political
RBMP process. and territorial significance.

The level of RBMPs allows a more detailed However, the two phenomena are important in
consideration of the links between the WFD and terms of sustainable spatial development as they
territorial cohesion. In particular, it is useful to both represent structural problems resulting from
consider this in terms of both the environmental inadequate adaptation of spatial development.
dimensions as well as the economic and social For example, as mentioned in the ESDP document,
dimensions of this term. Table 1.4 provides a brief floods have resulted in substantial damage to
analysis (it is based on the definitions of territorial private property and the economy. High water is
cohesion presented in Table 1.1 of this report). caused by a variety of factors, most of which are of
Several key issues and potential conflicts arise, man-made rather than natural origin, for example,
such as: the straightening of rivers, settlement of natural
flood plains and land uses which accelerate water
• the mismatch between river basin and runoff in the rivers' catchment areas.
administrative boundaries;
• related to this, the links between spatial Even in the drier regions of the EU, where rain
planning and river basin planning; occurs episodically but very intensively, there has

(12) See http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docoffic/official/reports/pdf/sum_en.pdf for more details.

Territorial cohesion and water management in Europe: the spatial perspective 19

Introduction

been more frequent flooding in recent years. In Spatial planning hence plays a key role in
Spain, for example, this has caused substantial addressing water issues. Experience in recent
damage. Integrated, sustainable management of years shows that without the integration of water
land use and water in the entire catchment area management measures into the process of land
of rivers represents an important response to this management and management of settlement
problem. development, neither a sustainable and efficient use
of water nor flood prevention can be achieved. Flood
To prevent the damage caused by such incidents, prevention in the major European river catchment
what is required in terms of spatial development areas can only be made effective through the
policy is that land use in the entire catchment imposition of clear conditions and intervention in
area is aimed at reducing runoff and that, in the land use. Similar comments apply to the reduction
potential runoff and flood areas, it is reviewed of water shortages. Sustainable management of
and changed as necessary. Independent of water resources means establishing effective control
this, technical flood control measures and over the various uses of water through planning and
disaster control measures by the relevant water economic instruments. This applies, in particular, to
management bodies are essential in order to keep agricultural irrigation and non-wasteful use of water
the damage to a minimum. in industry, commerce and private households.

Table 1.4 A preliminary overview of the coherence of RBMPs in terms of the economic, social
and environmental dimensions of territorial cohesion

Elements of Social and economic dimensions Environmental dimension

territorial
cohesion
Harmonious Potential synergies Potential synergies
and sustainable
Healthy water bodies can provide an The WFD's central aim is to 'protect and
development
attractive environment for economic restore clean waters across Europe and
development. This issue is considered in ensure its long-term sustainable use.'
Chapter 5.
The directive includes provisions to balance
Potential conflicts its environmental objectives with economic
considerations, e.g. in Article 4(4), and
While EU guidance calls for the integration of
economic analysis is identified as an element
RBMPs with other planning processes, this is
of the RBMPs.
not specified in the legislation. The links with
spatial planning in particular are described in Potential conflicts
Chapter 4.
None identified.
Inherent features Potential synergies Potential synergies
of territories
Flood protection through natural features can The analysis that underpins the RBMPs
provide a cost-effective mechanism to protect should consider the typology of water bodies,
lives and the economic elements. within the context of the eco-region (13). The
designation of water bodies allows both the
Potential conflicts
analysis and the legal mechanisms to address
Conflicts may arise in terms of flood the many potential differences across a river
protection; here, restoring flood plains and basin, which may extend from mountains to
other natural features can be an important coastal zones.
strategy, but one that could conflict with
Potential conflicts
existing economic functions. This issue is
considered in Chapter 4. None identified.

(13) An eco-region (ecological region), is an ecologically and geographically defined area that is smaller than an eco-zone and larger
than an ecosystem. Eco-regions cover relatively large areas of land or water, and contain characteristic, geographically distinct
assemblages of natural communities and species.

20 Territorial cohesion and water management in Europe: the spatial perspective

Introduction

Table 1.4 A preliminary overview of the coherence of RBMPs in terms of the economic, social
and environmental dimensions of territorial cohesion (cont.)

Elements of Social and economic dimensions Environmental dimension

territorial
cohesion
Concentration Potential synergies Potential synergies
RBMPs provide a mechanism to manage and The incorporation of economic principles
resolve conflicts over water issues. and water pricing in line with environmental
services provided is likely to help address
Potential conflicts
some of the water-related environmental
Cities require a large water supply, often from pressures associated with higher concentrated
distant sources. Industry and agriculture also development, particularly water pollution,
demand water supply. Several case studies in water resource scarcity, etc.
Chapters 4 and 5 consider these issues.
Potential conflicts
None identified.
Connecting Potential synergies Potential synergies
territories
River systems are an important element of The management of water issues at the river
green infrastructure that connects territories. basin scale recognises the inherent 'shared'
nature of Europe's freshwater resources.
Potential conflicts
Implementation of the WFD in an
Conflicts may arise between economic uses of
international RBD should be coordinated
rivers for connection — in particular for inland
between those Member States in the district;
navigation — and the ecosystem connections.
the RBMPs provide a key tool for this
cooperation.
Potential conflicts
Conflicts may arise due to the focus on the
geographic scale of river basins. For example,
the WFD does not have a mechanism to
address problems in wider geographic areas,
such as seas that receive water from several
river basins — this issue however links the
WFD to the MSFD.
Cooperation Potential synergies Potential synergies
Through the process to develop RBMPs, Public consultation is intended to be an
different actors in a river basin can negotiate important element for the development of
on their environment as their economic and RBMPs. The coordination among key services
social objectives. as well as with other planning processes is
also expected to be an important aspect.
For international river basins, this process
takes place among the Member States (and Member States and third countries in
third countries) that share the territory. international river basins are to cooperate on
RBMPs.
Potential conflicts
Potential conflicts
Conflicts may arise due to the mismatch
between the natural boundaries of the river Conflicts may arise due to the mismatch
basins and administrative boundaries. This between the natural boundaries of the river
issue is considered in Chapter 4. basins and administrative boundaries. This
issue is considered in Chapter 4.

Territorial cohesion and water management in Europe: the spatial perspective 21

Integrating river basin planning and spatial planning

2 Integrating river basin planning and

spatial planning

(See Box 2.1 for information on the place‑based

Box 2.1 The place-based approach approach). This perspective suggests spatial analysis
is an important tool for the preparation of RBMPs.
A place-based development policy is:
Moreover, the integration between RBMPs and
• a long-term development strategy aimed at spatial and land use planning (14) can potentially
reducing the underutilisation of resources and yield strong synergies.
social exclusion of specific places, through
the production of integrated bundles of public This chapter reviews recent analysis on this topic;
goods and services; in practice, the synergies between river basin
• determined by extracting and aggregating
people's knowledge and preferences in these
planning and spatial planning have by and large
places and turning them into projects; not yet been pursued. The chapter goes on to
• exogenously promoted through a system of describe several case studies that illustrate good
grants subject to conditionalities and multilevel practice, first looking at the links between RBMPs
governance. and spatial planning, and then in the area of flood
risk management, as spatial planning can be used
What is place?
to provide 'room' for rivers and their floodplains.
It thus is a key tool for the implementation of
In a place-based development policy,
the Floods Directive. Moreover, this sustainable
• a place is not identified by administrative approach to flood risk management can also create
boundaries, and protect natural areas.
• nor by any other ex-ante 'functional' criteria
(coincidence of residence and activity, density The requirement to develop RBMPs creates a
of population, absence of land connections,
number of issues in Member States, including
existence of water or other natural linkages,
altitude, proximity to natural areas, etc.), the interaction between this process and existing
• rather, a place is endogenous to the policy planning approaches, in particular spatial and land
process, it is a contiguous area within whose use planning. A guidance document prepared under
boundaries a set of conditions conducive to the CIS calls for integration between river basin
development apply more than they do across planning and land use planning.
boundaries”.

Source: Barca, F., 2009, Presentation given at the OECD/ Carter (2007) identifies a series of areas where spatial
TDPC Symposium on Regional Policy, Paris, planning can contribute to the implementation of the
2 December, 2009 (slide no 8) (http://www.oecd.
org/dataoecd/41/37/44305783.pdf), accessed directive (see Box 2.2).
17 March 2012.
A 2003 guidance document prepared by the
European Commission and EU water directors on
the preparation of RBMPs highlights some of these
The previous chapter highlighted some of the links and states that '... it will be advisable to ensure
common aspects that territorial cohesion shares that the land use and water planning processes
with the water management approach under the support ... each other as far as possible' (EC, 2003).
EU WFD. In particular, both the concept of territorial
cohesion and the mechanisms set up under the WFD The links become even stronger under the 2008
bring a place-based perspective for European policy Floods Directive, which calls on Member States to

(14) EEA (2009) draws a distinction between spatial and land use planning, and defines the former as 'the integration of land use
planning and sustainable development policies which influence the nature of places and how they function.' It appears from the
literature cited here that spatial planning in several EU Member States focuses on economic development and does not have a
strong sustainability component.

22 Territorial cohesion and water management in Europe: the spatial perspective

Integrating river basin planning and spatial planning

Box 2.2 Potential synergies between 2.1 Potential obstacles to the

spatial planning and RBMPs integration of spatial planning and
water management
Spatial planning has a series of characteristics
and approaches that can support the While calling for greater links between spatial and
development and implementation of RBMPs. For river basin planning, the European Commission's
example, spatial planning: 2003 guidance document notes several potential
obstacles. One is that in many parts of Europe,
• brings a long-term, strategic focus covering
large areas, similar to the perspective of the spatial planning previously set restrictions on water
WFD; bodies. This is valid for water abstraction used for
• influences a broad range of economic sectors irrigation, industry and households or by restricting
that affect river basins through water river banks and other engineering interventions.
consumption and pollution as well as the In contrast, the WFD sets requirements for the
modification of water bodies;
• influences the type and location of new
health of water bodies, and these can limit spatial
polluting activities and thus water status; planning.
• can also be used to translate water
management goals — such as measures for A further issue is the difference between
more efficient water consumption — into administrative and natural geographic areas as
local government action, for example for new
outlined by the EC (2003):
housing developments;
• shares a number of key tools with RBMP,
including, for example, SEA and public By creating a spatial unit for water management,
participation; based on river basins, it is likely that spatial conflicts
• is a key tool in addressing flood risks. will occur with other policy sectors that have a
significant impact on water, but are structured along
Source: Based on Carter, 2007.
administrative and political boundaries.

The first issue touches on the broader need for

integration, a topic throughout this study. The
integrate flood risk management plans with the question of differing boundaries is addressed here.
second round of RBMPs, to be developed in 2015;
the flood plans are to be developed on the basis of 2.1.1 Natural geographic and administrative
flood hazard and flood risk management plans. boundaries

Moreover, a series of other EU legislation affecting The WFD is innovative in that it calls for planning
water bodies also require the designation of spatial within RBDs that follow natural boundaries. In
areas. These include the following provisions: the Member States, however, existing spatial and
land use planning typically follows administrative
• under the Bathing Water Directive, Member boundaries at national, regional and local levels
States are to designate bathing water sites; (Nielsen et al., 2009), which typically follow
• for the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive, different boundaries; in Italy, for example, regional
Member States designate sensitive areas that are borders only match those of RBDs for the two large
at risk of eutrophication or are used for drinking islands of Sardinia and Sicily. Planning along natural
water abstraction; treatment plants discharging geographic boundaries is a new approach at EU
into these areas are required to meet higher level and in many countries as well. In contrast,
standards; spatial planning is often a long-standing process. In
• under the Nitrates Directive, Member States some countries, such as the United Kingdom, spatial
designate vulnerable zones that drain into water planning is hierarchical with national or regional
bodies affected or likely to be affected by nitrate plans providing a framework for those at local level
pollution. (Carter, 2007).

Spatial analysis and planning are thus important in From an environmental perspective, planning for
terms of implementing EU water legislation. administrative areas that do not match natural

Territorial cohesion and water management in Europe: the spatial perspective 23

Integrating river basin planning and spatial planning

geographic boundaries can create externalities: costs WFD had not brought stronger integration of the
can fall on those who do not benefit, as in the case two (Rudzite and Filho, 2009).
of water pollution from agriculture and industry
from one territory that flows downstream to others These results show that much more work is needed
(Nielsen et al., 2009 citing Moss, 2004); and benefits to link spatial and river basin planning across
may go to those outside the territory who have not Europe. At the same time, efforts to strengthen
paid for them — this can be the case for ecosystem these links are underway at national and regional
services such as those provided by forests in one levels. Several trans-national cooperation projects
territory that regulate floodwaters downstream. supported by EU Cohesion Policy funds have
brought together EU regions to develop new
Planning along natural geographic boundaries methods and approaches (see Chapter 3).
such as river basins provides a way to address
these externalities. In practice, RBD boundaries The following section provides selected examples of
co-exist with existing planning administrative approaches to link spatial analysis and river basin
areas nonetheless. A study of the application of the planning. Section 2.4 then describes the use of such
directive in Germany notes that this new approach approaches in the area of flood risk management.
on top of the existing administrative units such as (The distinction between the two sections is largely
the Bundesländer, creates overlaps and potential for presentation, as flood risk management is to
conflicts in the jurisdictions and interests of key be integrated into the next cycle of RBMPs, to be
actors. While the new system addresses the previous prepared in 2015.)
problem of externalities, it requires new interactions
and negotiations among actors (Moss, 2004). The
directive thus creates a new element of complexity. 2.2 Approaches that link spatial
In Germany, these difficulties have been addressed analysis and river basin planning
through coordination mechanisms among the
Bundesländer that share RBDs (Rudzite and Filho, Strengthening the links between spatial planning
2009). and river basin planning can be a complex process,
as successful methods need to be developed within
2.1.2 Other potential gaps the context of planning systems. The CIS guidance
document on river basin management planning
Another practical issue is that spatial planning and makes a distinction between 'rational-instrument'
river basin planning follow different timescales in planning, which is top-down planning, though other
most countries. However, this is related to a broader authorities and stakeholders have the opportunity
issue, the lack of a legislative or policy framework at to participate in the overall process but not in the
national or regional level to bring the two planning decisions, and an interactive approach in which
processes together. A further problem that has been participation is much broader: other authorities
identified in recent studies is the lack of shared and stakeholders contribute to definition of the
knowledge and sufficient resources for integration problem and the identification and implementation
(EnMaR, 2007). of solutions. The CIS document notes that different
approaches may be used in separate contexts within
Despite these problems, spatial analysis and the same country.
planning and river basin planning have been
brought together in a number of countries; the A range of methods can be used to strengthen
following sections describe several examples. the links between spatial analysis and river basin
planning. These are reflected below.
2.1.3 Progress thus far
2.2.1 Strategic Environmental Assessment
Despite the strong potential synergies described
in Section 2.1, in practice it appears that spatial One instrument is SEA, which is an environmental
planning has not been strongly linked with the first planning tool for improving decision making at
round of RBMPs, completed in December 2009. the strategic level of policies, legislation, strategies,
A review of six draft RBMPs (2009) found that less plans and programmes. It can be used to ensure that
than half have strong links with spatial planning spatial plans address water goals, and that RBMPs
(Dworak et al., 2010). A review of countries in the incorporate environmental goals in spatial plans.
Baltic Sea region found that spatial planning and While SEA is intended to be part of the planning
water management remained separate systems in process, in practice it may remain a step towards the
most countries; moreover, the implementation of the end, and this sequence would limit its impact.

24 Territorial cohesion and water management in Europe: the spatial perspective

Integrating river basin planning and spatial planning

2.2.2 Mechanisms for integration were jointly agreed. This recommendation is then
incorporated in a 'water paragraph' that is part of
Another approach is to promote integration in the final draft of a spatial plan, which is developed
the development of plans. This can be done, for by the spatial planning authority and presented to
example, through voluntary guidance, an approach the appropriate government level (municipality or
used at the regional scale in France, where for province) for review and approval. A positive 'water
example the authority for the Adour-Garonne recommendation' is not mandatory: in cases where
RBD has prepared a guidance document for local the water authorities do not provide it and the
authorities, for the integration of water management spatial authorities choose to continue with the plan,
issues in urban planning (see Chapter 5). they must justify their reasons. (While a legal appeal
is not possible in the water assessment process, such
A further method is to use a programme or initiative disagreements could be cited in the arguments of
as a mechanism for integration. This is seen in legal challenges to a spatial plan.)
France, where the national programme for green
infrastructure is to be implemented through the Experience with the process has brought forward
spatial planning system and should in turn be linked a number of lessons. One is that informal contacts
to the RBMPs (15). Timing is an issue, as this national between water and spatial authorities are important,
programme was launched after the preparation as key planning developments for both water and
of the first round of RBMPs in 2009. France has spatial plans are typically considered informally
addressed this by requiring the 2015 updates of before being presented in draft plans. Another is
the plans to take on board the green infrastructure the need to 'translate' water criteria into spatial
approach. terms (16).

Integration can go further and use a mandatory In Scotland, a set of government guidelines identify
process; this is seen for example in the Dutch water policy areas that should be integrated with the
assessment approach. Water assessment in the preparation of RBMPs, among which is spatial
Netherlands is not a formal assessment such as SEA, planning. The analysis in the case study below (see
but rather a process in which government bodies Box 2.3) shows that this approach is compatible
working on water issues contribute to the spatial with the key elements of territorial cohesion such as
planning process. Indeed, where SEAs are required, harmonious and sustainable development as well as
the water assessment may take place in parallel. the protection of inherent features of territories.

Since 2003, this process has been mandatory for Integration can go further and identify shared
all spatial plans that are required by law, such as objectives for the two planning systems and use
municipal land use plans and provincial spatial instruments to pursue these; for example, spatial
policies. It is also used for other spatial documents, plans could be used to pursue objectives under
such as perspectives and landscape plans. RBMPs. A further step would be to bring both
together into a common system, thus linking
For each water assessment, the process is designed planning for both land areas and freshwater bodies.
jointly by the relevant spatial planning authority As yet, however, no examples have been identified
and water authority; for example, they jointly for these steps in Europe.
identify water-related criteria to be used in
discussing the spatial plan. Water assessment is a 2.2.3 Regional environmental characterisation
flexible requirement and consequently the process
is adapted and developed on a case-by-case basis. The overall objective of REC is to provide the
Stakeholders, including developers that may be information and the tool to assess spatially the
affected by water requirements, can participate in environmental impact of European policies at the
the process. regional level. Characterisation, landscape and
environmental characterisation for example, is
In terms of formal results, water authorities one way of investigating, defining and recording
review and draft spatial plans and provide a the key assets and inherent features of a territory.
'water recommendation' based on the criteria that Environmental attributes/natural capital of a

(15) This programme, La Trame verte et bleue, is described in greater detail in the EEA Technical report No 18/2011 on Green
infrastructure and territorial cohesion.
(16) Sources: van Dyk, 2006; Riza et al., 2004.

Territorial cohesion and water management in Europe: the spatial perspective 25

Integrating river basin planning and spatial planning

Box 2.3 Policy provisions to integrate land use and river basin planning in Scotland

Summary

In 2008, the Scottish Government issued a policy statement titled Implementing the Water Environment
and Water Services (Scotland Act) Act 2003 — Promoting an Integrated Approach. The aim of the policy
statement is to highlight the Scottish Government's responsibilities in relation to the Water Environment
and Water Services (Scotland) Act 2003 (WEWS Act), which is linked to the WFD, and to demonstrate the
need for an integrated approach in implementing the obligations set out in the directive.

Photo: Loch Ness

Section 2 of the WEWS Act allows Scottish ministers to specify, by order, any piece of legislation as a
WEWS Relevant Enactment if such legislation gives statutory functions to the Scottish Government,
including Scotland's Environment Protection Agency (EPA), and where these are relevant to the
water environment. Designating legislation as a WEWS Relevant Enactment ensures that Scotland's
Government takes into account the social and economic impact of their activities relating to protecting
the water environment and also considers sustainable flood management and sustainable development
considerations. It also allows for a coordination of functions with government.

Land use planning is among the policy areas which have been designated as a WEWS Relevant
Enactment. (Further guidance is in preparation on hydropower and river basin management.)

Role of spatial analysis

A National Planning Framework (NPF) is one the mechanisms introduced by The Planning (Scotland)
Act 2006. The NPF plays a strong role in coordinating policies with a spatial dimension. There are also
opportunities for coordination between the NPF and the RBMPs. This includes information sharing between
the NPF and the RBMPs. For example, in reviewing the NPF, the Scottish Government is to take into
account the newly created RBMPs. It is expected that when the NPF is revised in 2012, the two planning
systems will be further aligned.

26 Territorial cohesion and water management in Europe: the spatial perspective

Integrating river basin planning and spatial planning

Box 2.3 Policy provisions to integrate land use and river basin planning in Scotland (cont.)

Link to implementation of the Water Framework Directive

The designation of land use planning as a WEWS Relevant Enactment ensures that a coordinated
approach is adopted to ensure compliance with the WFD. The RBMP for the Scottish basin district calls
for an integrated approach taking into account land management, and that the plan will have to include
active involvement from land managers for its implementation. The RBMP also refers to urban land uses
in its plan for tackling the principal pressures on the water environment in the Scotland RBD.

Link to the key elements of territorial cohesion, focusing on the environment dimension

Harmonious and sustainable development

The policy statement underlines that an integrated approach to policy development will ensure the
sustainable use of Scotland's water resources. The development plans that are prepared through the
land use planning system provide a framework for decisions on construction. The goal is to ensure that
before these plans are approved, the Scottish ministers have the opportunity to make sure that these are
compliant with the WFD.

Inherent features of territories

Areas where land use planning and controls under the WEWS Act should complement each other include
the provision of sustainable urban drainage systems, retaining watercourses in their natural state,
safeguarding the flood storage capacity of functional flood plains, as well as considering proposals which
could enhance the ecological quality of the environment.

Concentration (overcoming differences in density)

The policy statement also refers to the use of Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS), which include
practices as well as territorial features such as permeable surfaces and wetlands; new developments in
Scotland are to utilise these to drain surface water in a sustainable manner. The policy statement also
calls for their employment for drainage from roads.

Connecting territories

The policy statement underlines that controls under the WEWS Act and the planning systems should
complement each other in supporting the restoration of the water environment, such as through removing
disused engineering works and providing effective treatment of mine water discharges, creating fish
passes and incorporating habitat improvements.

Cooperation

The policy statement brings together government actors and stakeholders working on a broad range of
policy areas.

Further information

The Scottish Government, Implementing the Water Environment and Water Services (Scotland) Act 2003:
Promoting an Integrated Approach, A Policy Statement, July 2008.

Territorial cohesion and water management in Europe: the spatial perspective 27

Integrating river basin planning and spatial planning

territory can be explicitly recognised as a legitimate This analysis of scope for environmental
aspect of territorial cohesion in order to ensure that characterisation is at the source of a fully spatialised
sustainable development lies at the heart of policy approach for continental features and catchments
design. which are stepwise implemented as prequel to
the ecosystem accounts implementation. These
Environmental characterisation of territories could accounts will yield new indicators and aggregates
potentially provide baseline information about expressed in physical and monetary units that will
the environmental and natural assets, for example be made available to policymakers and analysts to
water of a specific region that makes it unique or assess the efficiency of natural resource use and the
important and supports territorial identity which contribution of nature and its use within and outside
would also help inform future policy like the the market (17).
WFD. The aim of developing approaches to REC
is to provide a tool to define the environmental 2.2.4 Water accounting
character and assets of European regions. These are
potentially to be used to contribute to the assessment The key understanding of water accounting
of the spatial impact of European policies, and in
particular territorial cohesion, on the environment The term 'water accounts' covers very different
and regional level. realities. The concept of environmental accounting
refers to the modification of the System of National
The first prototype done, published in 2010, was Accounts (SNA) (18) to incorporate the depletion
targeted on the assessment of urban policies; the of natural assets into the framework of national
selection of data was oriented towards indicators accounts. The very concept of natural accounts is
and data that could be used for assessment or urban still evolving and is currently being refined under
policies. The major axes of the assessment were the auspices of the United Nations Statistical
atmosphere, water and soil quality. Division (UNSD), through the System of Economic
and Environmental Accounts (SEEA) (19) revision
The evaluation of this combined indicator clearly carried out by the London group of experts.
poses the question of relevance of complicated
thresholds applied to environmental indicators. The SEEA attempts to integrate many of the
The water quality component is systematically different methods proposed for environmental
good, making the contribution of this component accounting into a single organised framework. It
redundant. Compliance value for nitrate, which proposes a series of versions or 'building blocks'
is a significant indicator of human pressure for the construction of the accounts, beginning
on the aquatic environment, is only related to with physical accounts and disaggregation of data
health hazards, and the retained concentration, already included in the SNA, and working towards
50 mg NO3/l, is far beyond natural values or more complex information such as calculation of
recommended values for many industrial uses. depletion and estimation of the maintenance costs
Hence, compliance thresholds are not suited to this required for sustainable use of resources. None of
purpose; values based on statistical distribution the versions of the SEEA goes as far as valuation of
established from natural concentration would be non-marketed environmental services.
more appropriate.
Many water accounts, for example, are being
In parallel, the accuracy of aggregation method produced using national level and annual
should be questioned. The EEA is finalising the resolution statistics, such as those compiled into the
implementation of stratified statistics; initial results Eurostat/Organisation for Economic Co-operation
clearly demonstrate high diversity of situations per and Development (OECD) joint questionnaire.
natural sub-basin. Once completed and harmonised, However, the current approaches are rather coarse
these results could serve to populate the combined and may provide misleading information by
indicator and make it more discriminating. smoothing the problems.

(17) See http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/an-experimental-framework-for-ecosystem for more information.

(18) The SNA is the set of accounts which national governments compile routinely to track the activity of their economies. SNA data are
used to calculate major economic indicators including gross domestic product (GDP), gross national product (GNP), savings rates
and trade balance figures.
(19) See http://unstats.un.org/unsd/envaccounting/seea.asp for more details.

28 Territorial cohesion and water management in Europe: the spatial perspective

Integrating river basin planning and spatial planning

When the EEA started implementing water accounts development by the European Commission's Joint
it was decided after analysis to build the accounts Research Centre (JRC) on the other hand. The
by making statistics on the detailed variables to currently computed water balances add together
accounts instead of using the simpler approach observed or reported data and assess their overall
of making accounts from the existing statistical consistency and, if assumed acceptable, their
aggregates. This approach obliged the construction relative weight in the system. Integrated water
of statistical populations (e.g. water values for cycle modelling has more fundamental ambitions
elementary catchment and per months) and hence but relates lesser on reporting. Some models carry
allowed a full capacity of assessment going beyond out on gridded systems for high integration of
the compilation of the final accounting tables. land‑water–meteorological data for example; this
violates the principles of environmental accounting
Moreover, the accounting exercise was considered that are first and foremost to rely on observed data.
as one of the possible outcomes of spatial data
assimilation and not a target per se for which only Rivers and catchments systems
the ad hoc data would have been collected. This
change in concept is based on the recognition that To analyse, cross check and valorise water data
money and water, despite being both described by — that is: rainfall, resource, runoff, storage, supplies,
quantitative variables, don't respond to the same uses and returns — a calculable system for both
aggregation algebra. Water can be neither loaned rivers and catchments is needed. The system of
nor transported far (in the absence of devices), rivers allows computing how much water flows
money can. between sub‑basins and catchments systems allow
assessing how much of the primary resource is
However, long-distance water transport occurs distributed and used. Catchments apportioning
in several circumstances: energy production and the totality of continental masses can be reallocated
urban water supply. The conurbation of Athens for to administrative areas and be documented with
example, where more than a third of the population spatial uses (land, cities, etc.). A calculable system is
of Greece lives, is supplied by 5 different water not a map it is the geometry from the map plus the
sources, the most distant of which is located almost full relationships between the objects. It comprises
200 km away (the Mornos reservoir 192 km to the geometry and topology.
west of Athens with an operational capacity of
670 hm3 (20)). Most sources are interconnected and The EEA uses the source of calculable information
a series of boreholes can provide water in case of released by the JRC (CCM) (21) and other sources to
emergency. develop ECRINS (European Catchments and River
Network System), which is disseminated free of
As a consequence, making relevant water accounts charge (22).
imposed aggregating them at sub-basin level
(domain in which water can be exchanged without Since calculable rivers and catchments systems exist,
device) and monthly resolution (time lag during the major computations needed to characterise the
which resource is assumed exploitable in the environment is feasible:
absence of storage).
• Accumulate any value from the catchments and
Implementing the infrastructures and data sets carry it along the river systems and aggregate
needed by accurate accounting is a long-lasting task at larger catchment level: for example, rain,
that is very well advanced and which outcomes evaporation, population, areas occupied by this
allow revisiting the problem of REC. or that activity.
• Transfer water along the rivers considering
There is an important difference between the water inputs and withdrawal (hydrological modelling)
balances as computed with the view of making on the one hand and select monitoring systems
water accounts on the one hand and integrated that are potentially depending on upstream
water cycle modelling, as for example under catchment conditions.

(20) A cubic hectometre (hm3) is used for volumes equalling 100 m by 100 m by 100 m, i.e. 1 000 000 cubic metres (1 000 000 m3).
(21) Catchment Characterisation Modelling, 2008: CCM2 River and catchments database for Europe version 2.1 release note.
(22) For the time being a draft report, provided with data sets.

Territorial cohesion and water management in Europe: the spatial perspective 29

Integrating river basin planning and spatial planning

Example of water balances 'assets' (SEEAW Table 6.1, e.g. rain to soil, returns to
lakes), 'flows between resources' (SEEAW Table 6.2,
Water balances were previously computed with e.g. groundwater to rivers, lakes to rivers), and
a complete model, however simplified, with SEEAW Table 3.1 that displays both supplies and
respect to soil and groundwater recharge because returns (e.g. lakes supply energy, sewage returns to
the necessary data was missing. Similarly, urban rivers).
uses were lumped as density uses because no city
supplies were identified. Map 2.1 illustrates the river flow per river segment,
averaged as annual discharge in m3/second. The
Despite limitations, the computations of monthly database contains monthly values per segment
discharges per segments and tentative computation from 2004–2009. These computations are currently
of balances at the RBD levels were successful and being expanded to 10 years and will cover the rest of
helped in defining data collection strategy. As a Europe.
result, a second series of computations are planned
from November 2011 onwards. Example of quality accounting

This type of data is of course tabulated and Quality accounting is an experimental approach
can be processed at administrative levels since of resource accounting. For most uses a quantity
ECRINS data sets are populated with the NUTS (23) is a resource only if its quality allows the uses.
classification. The improved calculations allow The term 'quality' should be understood in a
producing the Input/Output (I/O) tables that purely descriptive acceptation. Naturally saline or
are the core of the resource asset accounts to be ferruginous water have unacceptable quality for
presented at regional levels. These tables display certain uses.

Map 2.1 Sample map of river discharge values per river segment

Source: EEA/Pöyry computation, 2012.

(23) Nomenclature of territorial units for statistics. See http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/nuts_nomenclature/

introduction for more details.

30 Territorial cohesion and water management in Europe: the spatial perspective

Integrating river basin planning and spatial planning

Quality having no unit cannot be counted; hence, The methodology has been adapted to accounting
quality accounting requires defining a quantity monthly quality accounts, that are indeed more
which is counted according to its quality status. accurate and helpful in addressing the estimation
The issue has been acceptably solved for rivers and of 'quantity of quality' that is a strong backing to
quality in relation with chemical composition by analysing both the resource and effectiveness of
using the 'kmcn' (river length times the discharge) expenses.
which is a powerful unit describing a river system
with an accountable unit. These units are computed Figure 2.1 displays the seasonal patterns of quality
on the same entities (river segments) as the assets showing on the left poor quality, occupying a
are, making it possible to flag each and every asset large share of the total river units during high
'statistical unit' with quality. water periods (suggesting major impact of drained
contamination from soils), whereas the right display
In the System of Environmental and Economic shows a radically different pattern with a more
Accounting for Water (SEEAW) manual, the complex pattern in which soil drainage is likely one
weaknesses of the approach are mentioned. Once of the quality issues. The information from quality
having agreed on a scoring method, the most accounting can be assembled into pattern indicators
problematic issue is the general assessment of showing the type of quality issues that are at stake.
quality at the annual level, based on the worst
(or second worst) event recorded. This assessment Inter-annual assessment is also important to monitor
is antonymic with assets accounting that precisely the impact of measures at aggregated level. With
aims at considering changes and seasonal patterns. quality accounting being based on computation at
Monthly disaggregation allows for annual estimates the elementary segment, it is possible to sort out
as well. what is related to change in discharge (component

Figure 2.1 Sample display of quality accounting at monthly level for two river basins in France

Monthly UMEC water quality rating

40 000

35 000

30 000

25 000

20 000

15 000

10 000

5 000

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

WSB0000001-> Fleuve la Vilaine WSB0000005-> Rivière l’Allier

KMCN1: Very good KMCN3: Acceptable KMCN5: Very bad

KMCN2: Good KMCN4: Mediocre

Note: The Ecrins code of the catchment (e.g. WSB0000001 -> Fleuve la Vilaine) avoids any possible confusion since the ID is
unique and a name can be the same for different river basins: Don FR, Don Russia and Don UK for example).
KMCN stands for 'Kilomètre cours d'eau normalisé' (standard river-kilometer) which is the river quality accounting unit.
UMEC is 'Unité de compte des eaux continentales' since again, the development has been carried out by French experts.

Source: EEA/Pöyry computation, 2010.

Territorial cohesion and water management in Europe: the spatial perspective 31

Integrating river basin planning and spatial planning

of the km × discharge accounting unit) and what downstream has been verified at statistical level.
relates to substantial improvement in quality. Hence, the monitoring statistics placed in rivers can
be ear-marked according to the category of causes
The right series, for the Seine RBD, suggests a that dominated the catchments areas upstream of
change in total discharge, since the total kmcn this position. Using then a stratified approach allows
decreases, with global improvement of the total mitigating the rather different rates of sampling
index, suggesting at the annual level a strong (polluted rivers are more densely monitored than
influence of soil inputs in quality scoring. Such pristine ones) that results in strong biases if a
influence can be easily extracted from the data sets non‑stratified approach is carried out.
since the reference discharge is known.
Once the data is analysed from the ear-marked
Example of stratified statistics water stations useful results are obtained
that depict water quality trends (with known
Quality accounting, as presented above, makes no uncertainty) in relation to the main categories of
difference between drivers of the observed quality. causes (e.g. intensive agriculture, urbanisation).
The simplest approach to address the relationship The main difficulties are that: defining strata
between potential causes of quality (e.g. urban demands computing relevant characteristics
activities, pristine catchment, intensive agricultures) at a very detailed level to appropriately label
and observations is the application of spatialised monitoring stations; and only stations on the main
statistics. drainage system can be considered. The European
Environment Information and Observation
The assumption that the same causes (e.g. urban Network (Eionet) data flow is not fully
activities) exerted upstream result in the same effects satisfactory and computations at the European

Figure 2.2 Sample display of inter-annual quality accounting in two French river basin districts

UMEC water quality rating

3 500

3 000

2 500

2 000

1 500

1 000

500

0
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

WFD0000001-> Loire, Brittany and Vendee coastal waters WFD00000024-> Seine

KMCN1: Very good KMCN3: Acceptable KMCN5: Very bad

KMCN2: Good KMCN4: Mediocre

Note: The Ecrins code of the catchment (e.g. WSB0000001 -> Fleuve la Vilaine) avoids any possible confusion since the ID is
unique and a name can be the same for different river basins: Don FR, Don Russia and Don UK for example).
KMCN stands for 'Kilomètre cours d'eau normalisé' (standard river-kilometer) which is the river quality accounting unit.
UMEC is 'Unité de compte des eaux continentales' since again, the development has been carried out by French experts.

Source: EEA/Pöyry computation, 2010.

32 Territorial cohesion and water management in Europe: the spatial perspective

Integrating river basin planning and spatial planning

Map 2.2 Stratification of European catchments into seven strata

Notes: Computations on Ecrins v0, land use based on Corine 2000. Colours on the map indicate the downstream potential influence
of each of the strata of quality causes until the influence is replaced by another.

Source: EEA, 2007.

level have to be redone with enlarged data sets. By levels ('territories of reference'), that are basis for
contrast, where complete data sets are accessible, detailed water use indicators;
the results are very useful, as presented in the • water quality accounts at monthly level at
EEA Technical report 10/2007, Assessing water 'statistical unit' level, secondary aggregated at
quality in Europe using stratification techniques sub-basins levels ('territories of reference'), that
(EEA, 2007). are basis for detailed water quality indicators (24);
• representative stratified statistics of the
The latest computations define the pattern of strata relationships and trends category of pressure
(spatial distribution of causes) which is displayed in versus observation, at sub-catchment levels.
Map 2.2. A category being, for example, 'intensive
agriculture' or 'urban' activities. This last
Outcomes from water accounting output is not water accounting sensu stricto but
constitutes a closely related side-product of the
Along with the spatial information, three categories water accounts implementation.
of outputs are now implemented and produce
results from prototype to pilot levels of integration: The outcomes from water accounting will feed into
The Blueprint to Safeguard Europe's Waters (25). The
• water balances at monthly level at 'statistical Blueprint will tackle water efficiency. At present,
unit' level, secondary aggregated at sub-basins we do not know the size of the gap in Europe, in

(24) Both accounts follow, respectively, the System of Environmental and Economic Accounting for Water (SEEAW) methodology and the
prototype methodology of the SEEA.
(25) See http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/blueprint/index_en.htm for more details.

Territorial cohesion and water management in Europe: the spatial perspective 33

Integrating river basin planning and spatial planning

2020 or 2050, between water demand and water restoration of rivers, including Austria, France,
availability. In this respect the water accounts can be Spain, Switzerland and the United Kingdom
used to quantify how much water flows in and out (EEA, 2010b).
of river basins. This will provide the basic essential
information which is largely missing today to As shown in the two case studies below (see Box 2.4
optimise water uses at river basin level and look at and Box 2.5), river restoration often brings the dual
alternatives, in particular considering the material benefit of flood risk management as well as habitat
and virtual water flows between catchments. restoration.

2.3 The role of spatial analysis in flood 2.4 The role of spatial analysis in
management drought and water scarcity
management
The use of spatial analysis is an inherent element of
sustainable flood management (26) for a catchment Land use planning is one of the main drivers of
approach. Sustainable flood management is playing water use. Inadequate water allocation between
a growing role in both national policies as well as economic sectors results in imbalances between
individual projects. water needs and existing water resources.
A pragmatic shift is required in order to change
This section presents case studies from two policymaking patterns and to move forward
neighbouring countries, Belgium and the effective land use planning at the appropriate levels.
Netherlands, to discuss how spatial analysis has Spatial analysis can function as a tool in this process.
been linked to flood risk management and in
particular to approaches that involve the restoration Water scarcity and droughts affect many parts of
of flood plain areas. The two countries have been Europe. For example, all Mediterranean EU Member
concerned with flood risks for centuries, and this States are already affected, being 130 million
issue became a priority after flooding events in inhabitants or nearly 30 % of the EU population.
recent decades, including the devastating floods of Drought and water scarcity hence have a direct
1953. impact on citizens and economic sectors which use
and depend on water, such as agriculture, tourism,
In both countries, current flood risk management industry, energy and transport. Across Europe,
approaches seek to provide 'Room for the agriculture is the major cause of water abstraction,
River', the name of the Dutch programme. This but in parts of northern Europe abstraction can be
represents a major change from a previous focus on dominated by domestic and manufacturing sectors.
infrastructure as the solution to flood management, Droughts have occurred with increasing frequency
as seen for example in the 1977 Sigma Plan in over the past 30 years.
Belgium. Similarly, in the Netherlands, major
works in the 20th century created 'polders', land While 'drought' means a temporary decrease
reclamation areas used for farming and housing; in water availability due for instance to rainfall
more recently, the national spatial planning deficiency, 'water scarcity' means that water demand
debate has included a discussion of 'de-poldering', exceeds the water resources exploitable under
i.e. returning these reclaimed land areas to water. sustainable conditions. At least 11 % of the European
population and 17 % of its territory have been
In both cases, the flood management approach affected by water scarcity to date. The European
is strongly compatible with the environmental Commission expects further deterioration of the
dimension of territorial cohesion. One important water situation in Europe if temperatures keep rising
factor throughout sustainable flood management is as a result of climate change. Water is no longer
the restoration of inherent territorial features and the the problem of a few regions, but now concerns all
use of their ecosystem services, including floodwater 500 million Europeans.
retention. This approach consequently uses
environmental means to protect economic values. Policies and actions on drought and scarcity are set
up in the EU in order to prevent and to mitigate
A range of European national governments have water scarcity and drought situations, with the
developed programmes and guidelines for the priority to move towards a water-efficient and

(26) See http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/flood_risk/index.htm for information about the EU Floods Directive.

34 Territorial cohesion and water management in Europe: the spatial perspective

Integrating river basin planning and spatial planning

Box 2.4 The Netherlands: Room for the River (Planologische Kernbeslissing Ruimte voor de
Rivier)

Short description

During the past centuries, the area available for rivers in the Netherlands has decreased steadily. High
dikes have confined rivers, while the land behind the dikes has even often sunk as more people have
settled in the areas behind river dikes. Due to climate change, precipitation is increasing, including in
extreme events, and rivers must move more water. If the Netherlands is faced with a flood in the current
conditions, this can risk the safety of 4 million people. In 1993 and 1995, the water in Dutch rivers
reached very high levels; as a result, 250 000 people had to be evacuated in 1995.

In reaction, the government established the 'Room for the River' programme to achieve two interrelated
objectives:

• bring flood protection for the river region to the required level;

• contribute to improving the spatial quality of the river region.

To realise these objectives, the government is implementing safety measures for riverine areas in order
to better manage future floods. The Room for the River programme will give more room to the rivers at
39 locations. Examples of safety measures are depoldering (ontpolderen, see below), lowering of groynes,
water storage, building high water channels or dike relocation.

Along with flood management measures, the Room for the River Programme also invests in environmental
quality. The aim is to make the river regions more attractive and to offer more room to nature and
recreation. The Spatial Policy Document of the Netherlands (Nota Ruimte) establishes the objective of
safeguarding existing core qualities of the various river branches and developing new ones. The proposed
steps include:

• increase the physical diversity between the various river branches;

• maintain and strengthen the openness of the riverine area with its characteristic waterfronts;

• conserve and develop the scenic, ecological, geological, cultural and historic values and improve
environmental quality;

• promote use of the main navigable waterways by both professional and recreational craft.

The implementation of the Room for the River programme is carried out by 17 partners, including the
provinces and municipalities, water boards and Rijkswaterstaat. The Minister of Transport, Public Works
and Water Management has the overall responsibility for the programme.

Role of spatial analysis

The Room for the River flood protection policy is closely related to the national Spatial Policy Document,
which is the basis for the improvement of spatial quality in the Netherlands. The riverine areas are an
important component in the National Spatial Planning Network (Ruimtelijke Hoofdstructuur). As set out in
the spatial planning decision, national policy in the context of this decision 'has been used to develop the
National Spatial Planning Framework (Nationaal Ruimtelijk Kader), which sets out the direction of spatial
planning for various parts of the Rivers Region, together with the associated core tasks. The National
Spatial Planning Framework views the Rivers Region from the point of view of the National Spatial Planning
Network.'

The Spatial Policy Document thus includes spatial requirements necessary for a long-term prevention
against floods. Any local planning measures implemented in the short term should not conflict with this
long-term perspective. Consequently, the choice of flood protection measures needs to be compatible
with the spatial strategy of maintenance, adaptation and renovation. The measures to create more room
for the rivers should also be linked to urban development objectives; the enlargement of river beds near
urban areas can contribute to a renewal of the waterside frontage or the development of new areas for
recreation.

Territorial cohesion and water management in Europe: the spatial perspective 35

Integrating river basin planning and spatial planning

Box 2.4 The Netherlands: Room for the River (Planologische Kernbeslissing Ruimte voor de
Rivier) (cont.)

Link to implementation of the Water Framework Directive and the Floods Directive

The Floods Directive has a clear interface with the Room for the River programme. The programme
determines at which 39 points along the major rivers measures are needed to ensure that water is
retained and processed in cases of high levels of water. These measures include dike diversions and
construction of secondary channels.

The Floods Directive is mainly transposed through the Water Act and the Water Decree. The Water Act
regulates which authorities are competent for dealing with water issues. Chapter four of the Water Act
lays down the obligation to develop a national water plan. This plan contains the main elements of the
national water policy and relevant aspects of the spatial planning policy. These include the RBMPs for the
rivers. Ongoing programmes that are mentioned in the national water plan, such as Room for the River
and the Maas Works, thus should support the aims of the Floods Directives and the WFD.

Link to the key elements of territorial cohesion, focusing on the environment dimension

Harmonious development

The programme integrates economic, social and environmental policy goals; it implements safety
measures to protect citizens and economic interests. In addition, it aims at improving environmental
quality by connecting zones and offering more room to nature and recreation.

Providing more room for the river is perceived as increasing the quality of landscape (including in terms
of its cultural and historical value). This is utilised for nature, recreation and housing adjacent to water.

Inherent features of territories

As laid out in the Spatial Policy Document, the objectives include to maintain and reinforce the open
character of the Rivers Region, 'with its characteristic frontages along the water as well as to maintain
and develop the landscape, ecological, geographical and heritage features, and improve the quality of
the environment.' In general, 'future values aim at achieving sustainability, biodiversity, robustness,
adaptability, and flexibility over time, both in relation to new types of use and openness to new cultural
and economic values.'

Plans and projects included in the programme relate to the development of more natural river-related
ecosystems in areas that are currently made up of agricultural land. By restoring original features of
rivers, the programme serves to manage potential floods.

Concentration (overcoming differences in density)

Ecosystem services through measures such as overflow areas are recognised. The programme
acknowledges the important role that water-related ecosystems play in both climate regulation and in
climate change adaptation. Other examples of natural water retention measures are improving the soil's
water storage capacity and restoration or rehabilitation of water courses.

Connecting territories

The programme approaches the term connection from the perspective of the relation between
infrastructure and ecosystem. The programme also ensures connection between rivers to ensure
sufficient retention areas.

Cooperation

In preparing the programme, close cooperation was established with water boards, provinces and
municipalities, which continued in the implementation phase. For its implementation, the programme
places emphasis on decentralised authorities and partners within its central programme framework.

36 Territorial cohesion and water management in Europe: the spatial perspective

Integrating river basin planning and spatial planning

Box 2.4 The Netherlands: Room for the River (Planologische Kernbeslissing Ruimte voor de
Rivier) (cont.)

In practice, this means that decentralised authorities and partners are responsible for design choices,
risk management, licensing, selection, and control of market and development of local support. Such
agreements and conditions are laid down in cooperation agreements with the central government (27).

Further information

• Safety for four million Dutch citizens, Room for the River
(http://www.ruimtevoorderivier.nl/media/18566/brochureeng.pdf)

• Spatial planning key decision, Room for the River, Explanatory Memorandum
(http://www.ruimtevoorderivier.nl)

Box 2.5 Belgium: Sigma Plan, Scheldt River (28)

Short description

After floods in 1953 and 1976, the Sigma Plan came into force in 1977 with the objective to improve
safety against flooding in the Scheldt basin.

The 1977 Sigma Plan placed the focus on dikes and the proposed solutions to decrease the risk of
flooding were dike elevations, and the construction of flood areas and flood gates at Oosterweel and
the Over-Scheldt. However, after strong opposition as well as several studies (including an SEA) it was
decided to cancel the plans on flood gates.

In general, the vision on water management in general and the Scheldt, in particular, evolved. In
addition, potential climate change impacts have been increasingly taken into account. After the floods
of 1993–1994, a first revision of the Sigma Plan took place. Based on new insights, Flanders and the
Netherlands decided to develop a common approach. It was agreed that the best protection against
flooding would be the combination of local dike improvements and the development of flood control areas.
The plan was presented in 2001 and consists of a long-term vision with a package of measures on safety
against flooding (Sigma), accessibility for ships, nature conservation (special protection areas under the
Habitats Directive) and general measures (including monitoring and cooperation) (29).

The revised Sigma Plan was approved by the Flemish Government in July 2005. The 2010 Development
Outline (Ontwikkelingsschets 2010) for the Scheldt estuary was agreed between Belgium and the
Netherlands.

The revised Sigma Plan identifies the location of the flood plains and the elevation of local dikes; these
elements are to be further developed in projects. The implementation period of projects ends in 2030 and
aims at reducing flood risk by 75 % (30).

Role of spatial analysis

The Sigma Plan is viewed as an opportunity to combine flood prevention and safety with spatial planning
issues, including nature protection and recreation.

(27) 16th progress report, 1 January–1 June 2010, p. 7.

(28) See http://www.sigmaplan.be/ online for more details
(29) See http://www.scheldenet.nl/nl/scheldebeleid/beleid1/sigma/ for more details.
(30) See Presentation by Debeuckelaere, K. and Goldenman, G. on Climate change, land use planning and the EU Floods Directive:
Lessons from the Schelde, 2010.

Territorial cohesion and water management in Europe: the spatial perspective 37

Integrating river basin planning and spatial planning

Box 2.5 Belgium: Sigma Plan, Scheldt River (cont.)

The Spatial Structure Plan for Flanders (Ruimtelijk Structuurplan Vlaanderen) provides the basis for
the spatial policy of the Flemish region. It sets out the direction for developing the spatial structure of
Flanders as well as which commitments are necessary to achieve these goals, and is the touchstone of
the Flemish spatial policy. The Plan has been in place since 1997; a first revision took place in 2003 and
the Plan is currently going through its second revision (public consultation ended in May 2010).

Large rivers (including the Scheldt) are considered to be of decisive importance for the Flemish spatial
structure. The Spatial Structure Plan has a specific focus on natural areas in river regions (e.g. nature
in the estuary, bird migration routes, the gradient of brackish and fresh water in the Scheldt, which
is decisive for fish habitats), but also discusses the positioning of housing in relation to the rivers and
infrastructure.

Link to implementation of the Floods Directive

The Flemish Region transposed the Floods Directive by integrating its requirements in the Decree on
Integrated Water Policy.

On 8 October 2008, the Flemish Government approved the RBMPs for the Scheldt (and the Meuse) and
corresponding action programme for Flanders (31). The RBMP underlines that a multitude of plans and
programmes related to water management and policy and these, including the Sigma Plan, provide input
to the process of river basin management planning.

Flanders makes use of the option provided in Article 13(1) of the Floods Directive not to undertake the
preliminary flood risk assessment referred to in Article 4. This also relates to the fact that under the
Sigma Plan, much detailed data and digital elevation models were already drawn (32). Measures are being
prepared to integrate flood risk management into the 2015 revision of the RBMPs.

Link to the key elements of territorial cohesion, focusing on the environment dimension

Harmonious and sustainable development

The Spatial Structure Plan states that each ecosystem has four distinct functions that need to be in
balance: production, management, culture and support.

Inherent features of territories

Providing room for the river is preferred to infrastructure measures (such as barriers).

Concentration (overcoming differences in density)

The Spatial Structure Plan for Flanders emphasises that Flanders must maintain both 'urban and open'
spaces; the last term referring to places where openness and non-built spaces prevail. A coherent set of
rivers, stream valleys and natural areas are considered to be the structuring elements of the open space in
Flanders. The Sigma Plan includes the protection of urban areas against flooding through specific projects,
such as reconstruction of the banks of the Scheldt in Antwerp. On the economic side, an important measure
is the deepening of the Scheldt river estuary in order to maintain navigable areas for ships.

Connecting territories

The Spatial Structure Plan in turn acknowledges that fragmentation of open space negatively affects
ecosystems and populations, particularly with regard to loss of biodiversity, loss of spatial coherence and
the formation of new habitats (33).

(31) See http://www.integraalwaterbeleid.be/stroomgebieddistricten/vlaams/sgbpen/sgbp_schelde_def for more details.

(32) Advies, Voorontwerp van decreet tot wijziging van het decreet integraal waterbeleid met het oog op de omzetting van de Europese
overstromingsrichtlijn, Januari 2010, p. 4.
(33) Spatial Structure Plan for Flanders (first revision), p. 56.

38 Territorial cohesion and water management in Europe: the spatial perspective

Integrating river basin planning and spatial planning

Box 2.5 Belgium: Sigma Plan, Scheldt River (cont.)

Cooperation

The 2010 Development Outline (Scheldt estuary) was developed in cooperation between the Flanders
region and the Netherlands and also brought together officials and stakeholders from different policy
areas.

Further information

• Stroomgebiedbeheerplan voor de Schelde (River basin management plan for the Scheldt)

• Ruimtelijk Structuurplan Vlaanderen (Spatial Structure Plan for Flanders) (first revision)
(http://rsv.vlaanderen.be/nl/overRsv/Herzieningen/)

water-saving economy. In response, the European enlarged European Union has set up a Solidarity
Commission presented in 2007 a Communication Fund so that it can respond in a rapid, efficient
(COM(2007)414) on Addressing the challenge of and flexible manner to come to the aid of any
water scarcity and droughts in the European Union. Member State. The Fund has an annual budget of
Policy options were identified for tackling water EUR 1 billion (35).
scarcity and drought issues:
Box 2.6 below shows the example of Cyprus
• putting the right price tag on water; which experienced a severe drought in 2008 where
• allocating water and water-related funding more water reserves were near to depletion, resulting
efficiently; in substantial damaging environmental and
• improving drought risk management; socio‑economic impact.
• considering additional water supply
infrastructures;
• fostering water efficient technologies and Box 2.6 EU Solidarity Fund aids Cyprus
practices; following severe drought
• fostering the emergence of a water-saving culture
in Europe; The cumulative effect of the drought in
• improving knowledge and data collection. Cyprus led to serious consequences for living
conditions, the economy and the natural
Drought and water scarcity management is an environment. By April 2008, the country's
essential element of water resource policy and water reserves were near depletion. The
government applied for financial assistance
strategies. For example, drought management plans
from the EU Solidarity Fund to help respond to
based on the characterisation of possible droughts
the crisis, which had associated costs equivalent
in a basin, their effect and possible mitigation to an estimated 1.25 % of the country's
measures, should be prepared on a river basin scale gross national income (GNI). The European
using spatial analysis tools. Measures to prevent and Commission agreed to grant EUR 7.6 million in
alleviate the consequences of droughts and water aid from the EU Solidarity Fund. The aid mainly
scarcity should aim to establish a drought-resilient helped reimburse costs of emergency measures,
society with a focus on reducing the demand for such as the transport of water from Greece.
water so that negative impacts of droughts on the This was the first time the Solidarity Fund was
status of water bodies are avoided (34). used to provide financial aid for emergency
measures in response to an exceptional
drought.
In order to assist EU Member States in the event
of a major natural disaster like drought, the

(34) See http://www.eea.europa.eu/soer/europe/water-resources-quantity-and-flows for more information.

(35) See http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/regional_policy/provisions_and_instruments/g24217_en.htm for more information.

Territorial cohesion and water management in Europe: the spatial perspective 39

Cohesion Policy and the Water Framework Directive: the spatial context

3 Cohesion Policy and the Water

Framework Directive: the spatial
context

The previous chapter considered the links between of infrastructure such as wastewater treatment
spatial planning and river basin planning. This plants (WWTPs). Under the third, joint initiatives
section looks at EU Cohesion Policy, which is a key for better water management and governance are
instrument for implementing territorial cohesion, supported.
and in particular its links to water management.
The chapter discusses the objectives and relevant EU Cohesion Policy is mainly implemented
inter-linkages between Cohesion Policy and through the spending of a series of dedicated funds,
EU water policy, specifically the WFD and the including the European Regional Development
Floods Directive, and how they relate to territorial Fund (ERDF), the Cohesion Fund (CF) and
cohesion. It considers a number of specific spending European Social Fund (ESF). Cohesion Policy
areas where Cohesion Policy can affect water spending represents 35.7 % of the total EU budget
management, including by helping to implement the for the period 2007–2013.
WFD.

Cohesion Policy is an important tool for the 3.1 Interactions between Cohesion
support of European territorial cohesion. The Policy and the Water Framework
overall objective of the Cohesion Policy, as stated Directive
in the Community Strategic Guidelines (CSG)
for economic, social and territorial cohesion for Spending under the Cohesion Policy funds is
2007–2013 (Decision No 2006/702/EC), is that the governed by a set of regulations as well as the CSG.
'European territorial cooperation objective has an An analysis of these documents shows that:
important role to play in ensuring the balanced
and sustainable development of the territory of the • the Cohesion Policy regulations for 2007–2013
Community.' do not specifically mention the WFD, despite
several calls to do so by non-governmental
Cohesion Policy is articulated in three 'objectives': organisations (NGOs) and some Member State
environmental authorities at the time of their
• convergence: the goal is to promote drafting (ENEA, 2006);
the conditions for economic growth in • while the CSG refer to investments to support
least‑developed Member States and regions (in water management, they do not specifically
general, those whose gross domestic product state that water transport, water management
(GDP) per capita is below 75 % of the EU and risk prevention measures must be
average); compatible with the WFD to be eligible for
• competitiveness and employment: to strengthen funding;
innovation, training and other factors to help • at the same time, the WFD does specifically
other regions cope with economic change and require that Member States shall not allow other
strengthen their competitiveness; development projects to interfere with various
• European territorial cooperation: support to aspects of water quantity and quality and other
strengthen cross-border cooperation through functions (Articles 4.7, 4.8 and 4.9);
joint local and regional initiatives, trans-national • the CSG do refer to the cross-border and
cooperation aiming at integrated territorial trans‑national context of water management,
development, and interregional cooperation and and indicate water management as one of the
exchange of experience. important areas for funding within cross‑border
and trans‑national programmes. Within
The first and the third objectives are the most trans‑national cooperation, water management
relevant for water management. Under the first, at river basin level is specifically referenced
Cohesion Policy provides grants for the construction (CSG, Article 2.5).

40 Territorial cohesion and water management in Europe: the spatial perspective

Cohesion Policy and the Water Framework Directive: the spatial context

An important dimension of Cohesion Policy for potential conflict in terms of territorial cohesion;
territorial cohesion is its investment programming investments to support economic connections
process. This has required authorities to plan between territories can damage the inherent
water investments in coordination with national features of territories;
and regional development programmes, taking • finally, examples of the smaller territorial
into consideration a wide range of developmental cooperation projects are also reviewed, focusing
factors, including current and future economic on initiatives to support implementation of the
and environmental objectives across the country. WFD and the Floods Directive.
Cohesion Policy investment programmes should
be prepared on the basis on national strategic
frameworks, and relevant environmental and 3.2 Key spending areas: water supply
sectoral policies, including RBMPs. and wastewater treatment

The European Network of Environmental Financial support for the construction of water
Authorities (ENEA) has noted several areas where supply systems and WWTPs has been a major area
the WFD follows a similar programming process of spending for Cohesion Policy.
(ENEA, 2006):
In the 2000–2006 funding period for Cohesion
• it establishes a clear, cross-sectoral planning Policy, water supply and wastewater treatment
framework; together represented the most important area
• it calls for participation by stakeholders and the of environmental expenditures: 40 % of ERDF
broader public; environmental expenditures were allocated for that
• it calls for the cost effectiveness of investments in purpose (ADE, 2009), with further support from the
the water sector; Cohesion Fund (36). In this period, the ERDF alone
• the Directive promotes cooperation between provided nearly EUR 4 billion for WWTPs with total
different institutions and sectors, often across investment costs of EUR 6.3 billion.
regional and national borders.
Spending is even higher in the current period
Several types of water-related activities can be (2007–2013): nearly EUR 14 billion for wastewater
supported by the Cohesion Policy funds in the treatment and just over EUR 8 billion for water
current spending cycle, which runs from 2007 to supply (these figures include both Structural Funds
2013. These types of activities are listed in Table 3.1. and the Cohesion Fund (Directorate-General Regional
The largest in terms of funding amounts are of Policy (DG Regio) data)). Together, investments for
course investments in infrastructure. The funds wastewater treatment and water supply account for
can also support management activities, including 6.4 % of overall Cohesion Policy allocations for the
capacity building for river basin authorities (RBAs), period, and 44.2 % of the amount for environmental
as well as monitoring, which can support the infrastructure. Figure 3.1 shows funding allocations
development of RBMPs. across the Member States. The largest amounts of
funding have been allocated in the EU-12, where the
The following sections examine some of the specific infrastructure needs are greatest.
interactions between Cohesion Policy and the
WFD, and discuss synergies and contradictions that As mentioned above, the guidelines for the current
emerge. They cover major spending areas: Cohesion Policy (2007–2013) refer to the use of
the funds for the provision of clean water supply
• spending for water supply and wastewater and wastewater treatment infrastructure where
treatment infrastructure directly supports the needed. In this regard, considerable funding for
implementation of the Directive; water supply and wastewater treatment has been
• water body modifications, such as water supplied through Cohesion Policy funds, from
transfers, may lead to either improvements or past and ongoing projects, resulting in marked
reductions in water quality; improvements in these services across the EU. The
• investments for inland navigation are a specific scope of water protection was expanded by the WFD
type of water body modifications and an area of in 2000, through the requirement of 'good status'

(36) Funding for water infrastructure from the Cohesion Fund is greater than that from the ERDF, but exact data on CF spending and
the outcomes will not be available until 2011, when the ex post evaluation is completed. Figures from the ERDF are indicative,
however, of the overall priority given to the water sector, particularly wastewater treatment, within environmental infrastructure
spending by Member States.

Territorial cohesion and water management in Europe: the spatial perspective 41

Cohesion Policy and the Water Framework Directive: the spatial context

Table 3.1 Types of activities under the WFD that can be funded via Cohesion Policy and the
Structural Funds

Funding options
Cost item
ERDF (37) ESF (38) Cohesion fund
Framework for management and administration
Administration of River Basin Authorities (RBAs)
Strengthening of RBAs X X
Technical capacity building for RBAs X X
Support and capacity building of stakeholders/interested X X
parties by RBAs
Setting up a stakeholder network and managing the X
participatory processes by RBAs
Scientific studies inventories, mapping X X
Awareness-raising campaigns X
Operation and monitoring
Monitoring systems and risk analyses X
Flood risk management X
Erosion control X
Water-saving solutions for agriculture
Vegetation restoration
Water-saving solutions for industry X
Pollution control
Infrastructure
Adapting existing water infrastructure X
New infrastructure for the management of water resources X X
Improvement of water networks X X
Wetland restoration X
Equipment acquisition X

Source: WWF, 2005.

for all waters by 2015. Cohesion Policy spending to 2018 (Romania) in their accession treaties; most
on wastewater treatment infrastructure has been will need to complete implementation by 2015. In
and will continue to be one of the major steps taken this sense, there is a clear synergy between Cohesion
towards this environmental objective of the WFD. Policy and water policy, as Cohesion Policy spending
enables Member States to accelerate their timetables
Cohesion Policy spending is intended to assist for the construction of the infrastructure needed.
Member States meet the requirements under (Funding for wastewater treatment nevertheless
the Drinking Water Directive (98/83 EC) and the continues in Greece, Italy and Spain, three 'old'
Urban Wastewater Treatment (UWWT) Directive Member States, even though the UWWT Directive
(91/271/EEC). Spending in the current period is in has passed.)
particular intended to support EU-12 Member States
in complying with deadlines for implementation Despite the role of Cohesion Policy spending
of these EU directives. For example, the UWWT in assisting EU-12 Member States to implement
Directive required full implementation by 2005 for wastewater treatment and drinking water directives,
the EU-15; new members have negotiated transition governments have faced several problems in using
periods for full implementation from 2007 (Malta) the money effectively (39).

(37) European Regional Development Fund (ERDF).

(38) European Social Fund (ESF).
(39) See http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/eea_report_2005_2 for more details.

42 Territorial cohesion and water management in Europe: the spatial perspective

Cohesion Policy and the Water Framework Directive: the spatial context

Figure 3.1 Funding allocations for water supply and wastewater treatment for all Cohesion
Policy funds, 2007–2013 by Member State

Million EUR
3 500

3 000

2 500

2 000

1 500

1 000

500

0
Es y

G ia

ia

un rg
ry

Sl nia
Fr n
e

ce

Fi ia
er rk

he ta

Au s

Sw d
Ki den
en ic

m l
Sl nia
Re um

Cy y

C
m
La s

Po nd
Be ria

Po ia

Ro ga
nd
u
an

ni
ec

al
an

an
ai

CB
bl

ak
r

do
al
ga
a

u
an

pr

la
a

st
t
It
to

Lu hua

e
Sp

a
i

bo
pu

re

rla
m

e
el

nl
M
lg
lg

ov
ov
rt

ng
Ir
Bu

m
t

H
Li
G
D

xe

et
h

d
ec

te
Cz

ni
U
Water supply Waste water treatment

Note: CBC = Cross border cooperation.

Source: DG Regio data.

One area of problems is related to 'absorption 3.3 Key spending areas: inland water
capacity' where a lack of capacity for financial way transport (40)
analysis and project management has caused delays.
The role of local authorities is particularly important. The Cohesion Policy funds have allocated over
At the same time, the pressure to use available EUR 876 million for inland transport projects in
money and move forward with investment plans has the 2007–2013 cycle. Romania is the Member State
resulted in some poorly planned investments going that has received the largest allocation, almost
forward, without proper attention given to EIA and EUR 200 million, followed by Bulgaria, Germany
business planning, including water pricing and and Hungary.
cost recovery. This contradicts the WFD in several
ways; most notably the principle of cost recovery The work for inland waterways can include the
for the provision, collection and treatment of water creation or enlargement of artificial water bodies,
and wastewater. Box 3.1 presents some of these such as barge canals, as well as modifications to
difficulties in Estonia. existing rivers and other natural water bodies.
Along rivers, a range of environmental impacts can
occur (41):

(40) This sub-section provides information related to point 2.2.2 of the Technical annex.
(41) International Commission on the Protection of the Danube River, web pages on navigation. See http://www.icpdr.org/icpdr-pages/
navigation.htm for more details.

Territorial cohesion and water management in Europe: the spatial perspective 43

Cohesion Policy and the Water Framework Directive: the spatial context

• change of the natural river structure; areas and floodplain forests; long stretches of
• changes to river courses, such as the blocking of the river as well as many wetlands and other
connections to separate channels, tributaries and ecosystems that depend on it are protected as
wetlands; Natura  2000 sites. NGOs have warned that the
• disruption of natural flow patterns by river navigation projects are a potential threat to
hydromorphological alterations; these sites and to the river's ecosystem as a whole.
• hindering fish migration due to sluices and For example, it is claimed that the navigation
associated dykes/weirs; projects in Hungary could endanger the river
• engineering works designed to remove landscape, wetland areas and floodplain forests.
sediments and clear channels; New infrastructure might also undermine other
• accidental pollution involving oil or hazardous functions of the river, ranging from drinking water
substances; and flood management to fishing, tourism and
• pollution by discharged bilge water, wastewater recreation (42).
from tank washings and sewage from passenger
boats; To address the conflicts between inland navigation
• inadvertent introduction of invasive species. and environmental protection on the Danube, three
international organisations in the Danube basin
A large number of projects are slated for sections presented in 2007 a joint statement on this topic (43).
of the Danube river, which is designated as part The three organisations are the International
of a European priority 'axis' for transport that Commission for the Protection of the Danube
stretches from Rotterdam to the Black Sea. Box 3.2 river (ICPDR), which works on environmental
presents one of the proposed projects, in Hungary, protection and prepared the overall Danube RBMP;
in detail. Other projects have been proposed for EU the Danube Commission (DC), responsible for
financing in Bulgaria and Romania. navigation on the river; and the International Sava
River Basin Commission (SRBC), which coordinates
The Danube is one of Europe's greatest landscapes both navigation and water management in this sub-
and its stretches in these countries contain wetland basin of the Danube.

Figure 3.3 Spending in inland transport

EUR

250 000 000

200 000 000

150 000 000

100 000 000

50 000 000

0
ia

ic

ce

ia
ry
y

a
y
um

C
l
ga
nd
ec
an

al
ni

ni

CB
bl
ar

an
ga
an

la
It
to

ua

u
i

pu

re

rla
m
lg

lg

m
Po

rt
un
Fr
Es

th
Bu

Be

er
Re

Po
he

Ro
H
Li
G

et
h
ec

N
Cz

(42) See http://bankwatch.org/billions/index.php for more details.

(43) ICPDR, DC and SRBC, Joint Statement on Guiding Principles for the Development of Inland Navigation and Environmental
Protection in the Danube River Basin, October 2007.

44 Territorial cohesion and water management in Europe: the spatial perspective

Cohesion Policy and the Water Framework Directive: the spatial context

Box 3.1 Water supply and wastewater treatment in Estonia

Estonia is a small lowland country with many lakes and two large islands. The entire territory lies within the
Baltic Sea catchment area and drains, in part, into the Gulf of Finland and the Gulf of Riga, both of which
are vulnerable and quite polluted. The country has three RBDs. With regard to the UWWT Directive, Estonia
has designated its entire territory as a sensitive area, thus requiring a higher level of treatment. Estonia
has obtained a transitional period for compliance with this Directive, with a deadline at the end of 2010.
Historically, Estonia has been at the forefront in municipal sewage treatment, as plants were installed in
40 % of towns during the Soviet period, and significant upgrading took place from the 1990s onward, so
that about 70 % of all households were connected to municipal sewage treatment by 2005 (EEA, 2005).
Nevertheless, full compliance with the UWWT Directive remains a serious financial challenge, as the quality
of treatment processes must be upgraded in most areas and there is significant reconstruction of old sewer
pipelines to be carried out.

Map 3.1 Rivers of Estonia

Source: UNEP GRID-Arendal, 1997.

Recent estimates show that nearly EUR 2 billion from the Cohesion Policy (and the Instrument for Structural
Policy for Pre-Accession (ISPA), a pre-cursor to Cohesion Policy funds for large infrastructure investments
in Candidate Countries) has been spent or allocated for water supply and wastewater treatment in Estonia
since 2000, as detailed in Table 3.2.

For the most part, WWTPs in larger settlements (over 100 000 PE (44); a total of 6 in the country) have
been renovated and are in good condition. Many medium-size plants (PE 2 000–100 000) are in need of
renovation, especially surplus sludge treatment technology. Sewer systems in these communities are also
in need of extension and renovation. (Aqua Consult Baltic, 2010). Costs for this work as of 2007 have
been estimated at EUR 867 million, which is more than twice the amount that has been allocated from the
Cohesion Policy funds for 2007–2013, meaning that considerable financing will have to come from national
and local governments as well as other sources, including loans.

(44) Population equivalent or unit per capita loading, (PE), in wastewater treatment is the number expressing the ratio of the sum of
the pollution load produced over 24 hours by industrial facilities and services to the individual pollution load in household sewage
produced by one person in the same time frame.

Territorial cohesion and water management in Europe: the spatial perspective 45

Cohesion Policy and the Water Framework Directive: the spatial context

Box 3.1 Water supply and wastewater treatment in Estonia (cont.)

Table 3.2 Cohesion Policy and ISPA spending and allocations for water supply and
wastewater in Estonia, 2000–2013

Type of fund Funding (million EUR)

ISPA (2000–2004) 769 886 640
CF (2004–2006) 170 841 843
ERDF (2004–2006) 599 044 797
Total (2000–2006) 1 539 773 280
Structural and Cohesion funds (2007–2013) 407 756 320
Total 1 947 529 600

Note: All data from DG Regio. Data for ISPA and CF are estimates based on reported projects; final figures to be issued in
2011 through ex post evaluation. Actual allocations may be slightly higher as some water projects may receive contribution
from funding in other categories, basic infrastructure for example.

The Cohesion Policy planning process has encouraged a more coordinated planning of the water sector in
Estonia: water infrastructure investments in Estonia for the current Cohesion Policy funds are being prepared
on the basis of the management plans for the country's eight river sub-basins (Republic of Estonia, 2007).
Consequently, river basin planning has helped to shape planning for Cohesion Policy investments.

Cohesion Policy funding is also available to address contaminated sites that threaten water quality,
including oil shale dumps, old asphalt concrete factories, and waste oil disposal sites, many of which are the
responsibility of the state to remediate (Republic of Estonia, 2007).

Despite the positive role of Cohesion Policy, both in terms of financial support as well as planning, a number
of problems have arisen. These complications have resulted in delays in programme implementation that will
most likely render Estonia unable to ensure sufficient wastewater treatment in all settlements over 2 000 PE
by the 2010 UWWT Directive deadline, and may threaten the capacity of the country's water and wastewater
service operators to maintain the infrastructure in good working order in the coming years.

According to the Estonian Government audit office, many wastewater treatment projects in rural areas
are unsustainable as not all costs have been taken into account when determining the price of water and
sewerage services. As a result, the revenue the rates generate will not be sufficient to cover the operation and
maintenance of the infrastructure. In addition to putting the investments at risk, these problems run counter
to the cost recovery provisions in Article 9 of the WFD, which state that water management companies should
aim to recover from users all the costs of providing, collecting and treating water.

Shortcomings in financial and environmental impact analysis of projects are often a result of the pressure to
meet the demanding timeframe of the EU budgetary process and a lack of the necessary preliminary studies
(Tarmo, 2007). These shortcomings have led to project implementation delays which ultimately place greater
costs on the national government. Down the line, if poorly planned projects cannot be maintained, this
burden will also fall to the state, requiring further public expenditure.

Governance within the system of public administration has been a persistent problem. The Ministry of
Environment is responsible for the implementation of environmental legislation and overseeing CF spending
on environmental infrastructure. But it is the local authorities who are responsible for the construction and
operation of water infrastructure in their territories, and are the owners and implementers of the investments.
If a local authority does not wish to partake in an investment project, or lacks the ability to co-finance the
project due to restrictions on its ability to take loans, the Ministry of Environment does not have the authority
to force the municipal government to participate. Furthermore, some local authorities are poorly prepared
for their involvement in projects, lacking, among other things, a public water supply and sewerage system
development plan.

The situation in Estonia is not unique in the EU, particularly in the EU-12, as all countries face a pressure
to absorb funds within short deadlines. Weak institutions, particularly at the local and regional levels, are
often a problem; so are difficulties in charging users the full costs of water services. While the intent of
Cohesion Policy is to improve territorial cohesion and work in synergy with the WFD, in some cases complex
implementation realities result in contradictions, as seen in the case of Estonia.

46 Territorial cohesion and water management in Europe: the spatial perspective

Cohesion Policy and the Water Framework Directive: the spatial context

The joint statement supports both growth in freight Both projects illustrate potential conflicts with the
traffic on the Danube as a means to reduce road WFD, whose provisions would prevent modifications
transport as well as environmental protection, that reduce the status of water bodies in either
including the respect of EU legislation for water chemical or ecological terms. In both cases, the legal
bodies and nature conservation. It calls for the use situation was complex. In Spain, construction of the
of an integrated planning approach, with the goal of Jucar-Vinalopó water transfer (Box 3.3) started before
'multi-use riverine landscapes' that support inland the Directive entered into force, and in Hungary the
navigation as well as habitats, flood protection, Kis-Balaton project (Box 3.4) aimed at improving
fisheries and tourism. The East of Vienna river water quality in Lake Balaton but questions were
navigation project (supported by EU Trans‑European raised about its impact on wetlands. In both cases,
Network for Transport (TEN-T) funds) is seen as an the projects were significantly modified following
example of good practice in this regard. protests and reviews.

The case study from Hungary shows that debate For the Jucar-Vinalopó project, the final decision
between inland navigation and natural ecosystems appears a compromise with a lower level of
can be analysed in terms of the key themes of water quantities transferred, a solution accepted
territorial cohesion. The modifications for inland by farmers in the Jucar basin (and by some
navigation will affect the inherent features of environmental groups), but provides less for farmers
this territory. Moreover, while the Danube is a in the Vinalopó basin. For the Kis-Balaton project,
transport connection between territories, it also is the final project appears to support both the original
an ecological connection and is possibly Europe's goal of improving water quality in Lake Balaton
largest and most important element of green while also expanding a wetlands area.
infrastructure. The projects create dilemmas in terms
of the harmonious and sustainable development of Both projects raise interesting questions about
the river landscape. the definition of inherent features of territories,
and both touch on issues related to agriculture. In
The joint statement provides a way forward for the case of the Kis-Balaton project, the project is
addressing these dilemmas. In principle, tools restoring a wetland area to its historical dimensions.
such as SEA and EIA can be used to provide the In a similar fashion, the river restoration initiatives
assessments of proposals and their alternatives described in Chapter 2 restore natural features that
in order to take appropriate decisions (the were removed several decades ago. A key issue is
WIAs piloted in the Neth erlands may provide how to define the inherent features of territories that
useful components). Here, however, there are have been used and modified by human activity for
important questions about the appropriate scale centuries.
for assessments. It will be important for such
assessments to consider the role of the Danube as The wetlands restored in the Kis-Balaton project will
a whole. Indeed, the inland navigation projects play a role in retaining nutrients from agricultural
are part of a long transport axis that considers the activities. Should a wider-scale project also consider
Danube as a whole, along with other river systems, and possibly modify the agricultural activities in
notably the Rhine. On the environmental side, a territory? Agriculture in most parts of Europe
assessments will need to consider at least the scale has become more intensive in recent decades,
of the Danube river basin, in addition to the scale of thus generating greater nutrient runoff. Indeed,
individual interventions at bottlenecks as well as the some traditional, extensive agricultural systems
middle-scale, in this case that of navigation projects maintain high nature values (EEA, 2010a). Moreover,
across Hungary. agriculture has shaped Europe's landscape for
centuries: to what extent should traditional
agriculture be considered part of the inherent
3.4 Examples of other investment features of a territory?
projects that modify water bodies
In Spain, irrigation and water transfers for
Many other investment projects supported by the agriculture also have a long history. In coming
Cohesion Policy, in addition to inland navigation, decades, climate change is expected to reduce water
will modify water bodies. This sub-section looks at availability in southern Spain and other parts of
two examples. The first is a water transfer project in the Mediterranean, and a key territorial question is
Spain, and the second is a project in Hungary that the extent to which water transfers should continue
aims to improve water quality and also expand a and even increase and the extent to which current
wetlands area. agricultural patterns need to change.

Territorial cohesion and water management in Europe: the spatial perspective 47

Cohesion Policy and the Water Framework Directive: the spatial context

Box 3.2 Navigation projects in Hungary

The entire course of the Danube river through

Map 3.2 Navigation Projects in Hungary (45)
Hungary (except for the urban area of Budapest)
is designated as a Natura 2000 area. At the
same time, the navigable channel of the Danube
(or 'fairway') through Hungary does not meet the
United Nations Economic Commission for Europe
(UNECE) parameters (46) concerning depth or
breadth at about 50 points for about half of the
year.

The Danube, together with the Rhine, Meuse and

Main rivers, forms a priority axis for development
under the TEN-T. As part of TEN Priority Project No
18, a series of studies are preparing projects to
improve inland navigation along the Danube (47).

One study, prepared by VITUKI (48) in 2007,

identified options to provide a minimum of 2.7 m
navigation depth through the Danube in Hungary for almost the whole year. In May 2009, the Hungarian
Ministry of Transport (49) opened a public tender to prepare a set of studies related to the project:

• a SEA;
• study on the impacts of navigation on Natura 2000 sites;
• a study related to Article 4 of the WFD (which inter alia allows the extension of the Directive's
requirements or the adoption of less stringent environmental objectives under specific conditions).

Link to Cohesion Policy

TEN-T projects are financed by national, European

Investment Bank (EIB) and EU resources; EU funds
include both Cohesion Policy funds and a dedicated
TEN-T budget. The total amount of financial
resources allocated for the elaboration of the studies
relating to navigation on the Hungarian sketch of the
Danube is EUR 8 million, of which the EU is providing
50 % through the TEN-T budget.

If the project is approved, engineering and other

works may be financed through the Cohesion Policy:
Hungary's Operational Programme for Transport
(2007–2013) notes that further projects on the
development of the navigability of the Danube may
be initiated in a later phase of the programming
Photo: Vessel on the River Danube (51)
period, after 2010 (50).

(45) See http://assets.panda.org/downloads/hungary_factsheet_18_jan_2010.pdf for more details.

(46) UNECE VI B and C parameters.
(47) See http://tentea.ec.europa.eu/en/ten-t_projects/ten-t_projects_by_country/hungary/2007-hu-18090-s.htm for more details.
(48) Website of VITUKI relating to navigation on the Danube.
See http://www.vituki.hu/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=68&Itemid=83 for more details.
(49) Currently Ministry of National Development.
(50) Transport Operational Programme. See http://www.nfu.hu/umft_operativ_programok for more details.
(51) Sustainable development of inland waterways transport. See http://www.danubecommission.org/uploads/doc/72/seminar/013.ppt
for more details.

48 Territorial cohesion and water management in Europe: the spatial perspective

Cohesion Policy and the Water Framework Directive: the spatial context

Box 3.2 Navigation projects in Hungary (cont.)

Link to the Water Framework Directive

The RBMP of Hungary lists infrastructure projects to be implemented by 2015. The current list consists of
112 future projects, among which 64 (57 %) relates to navigation. The plan states that most of the projects
are still under planning (57); however, in 22 cases the projects are in the phase of implementation.

The RBMP states that in line with the WFD (Article 4) water bodies subject to navigation can be designated
as artificial or heavily modified where the environmental aim is to achieve good ecological status. The plan
does not further elaborate on this topic (52).

Link to the key elements of territorial cohesion, focusing on the environment dimension

Harmonious and sustainable development

The improvements in river navigation are intended to strengthen the competitiveness of the Hungarian
economy. The VITUKI study refers to an environmentally sound, safe and economic navigation system.
However, the project has been criticised by NGOs as endangering natural areas along the Danube including
Natura 2000 sites (53).

Inherent features of territories

The navigation work is likely to affect the functioning of Hungary's Danube Natura 2000 site, together with
national parks (e.g. Danube-Ipoly National Park and Duna-Drava National Park) and Ramsar sites. Here, it
will be important to see if the SEA and other studies launched in 2009 provide potential solutions.

Concentration
The Danube provides an important transport link through several EU Member States as well as neighbouring
countries.

Connecting territories
The navigation projects are part of the TEN-T Priority Project No 18 (54) (waterway axis Rhine/Meuse–
Main–Danube), which crosses Europe transversally from the North Sea at Rotterdam to the Black Sea in
Romania. At the same time, the Danube river basin is linked through a common Management Plan whose
goal is to protect and enhance all water bodies to the level of good status (ecological, chemical and
quantitative) by 2015 (55).

Cooperation
Danube countries are committed to cooperate through the implementation of the TEN-T Priority Project and
the Danube RBMP.

(52) River Basin Management Plan of Hungary. See http://www.vizeink.hu/files2/100505/Orszagos_VGT0516.pdf for more details.
(53) Bankwatch, Mapping controversial anti-crisis paths for EU and EIB funding in central and eastern Europe.
See http://www.bankwatch.org/billions/index.php for more details.
(54) There are 9 ongoing national level projects listed under the TEN-T Priority Project No 18. See http://tentea.ec.europa.eu/en/ten-t_
projects/30_priority_projects/priority_project_18/priority_project_18.htm for more details.
(55) See http://www.icpdr.org/participate/danube_river_basin_management_plan for more details.

Territorial cohesion and water management in Europe: the spatial perspective 49

Cohesion Policy and the Water Framework Directive: the spatial context

Box 3.3 The Jucar-Vinalopó water transfer project

Summary

The idea of a Jucar-Vinalopó transfer dates back to 1420; it was the first water transfer project of its kind
to be recorded, though the work at that time was not completed (56). More recently, it was an element of
proposals for massive freshwater transfer projects in Spain in the 20th century.

This transfer was again proposed in the Jucar Basin Plan of 1998, for the purpose of reducing aquifer
overexploitation in the Vinalopó-Alacanti area as well as an urban water deficit in Marina Baja. Construction
started in 2002 and went through successive interruptions and changes in design due to opposition from
environmental organisations as well as traditional farmers in the lower Jucar basin. The former feared
severe negative impacts on the Jucar River and Albufera wetlands, and argued that the project contravened
several European directives including the WFD and the Directive on Natural Habitats (92/43/EEC). In turn,
farmers in the Jucar basin contended that the project would result in reduced water intakes for them.

In August 2004, a consultation process was initiated by the Spanish Ministry of Environment to re-examine
the project; this allowed opponents of the transfer an opportunity to present and discuss their concerns.
A Group of Study was created including representatives of the Ministry, Jucar Basin Authority, Valencia
Regional Government, water users in source and receptor basins, environmental NGOs and independent
experts. The outcome of the Group of Study's work was presented to a broader public including
representatives of the European Commission in 2005.

This process resulted in a revised project that would run through 2.7 km of protected areas, compared to
41 km in the original design. This new version also modified the intake of the transfer and restricted the
use of transferred water to irrigation purposes, while future urban water deficits in Marina Baja were to be
covered by desalination plants. Reactions to the revised plan ranged from more or less explicit agreement
(e.g. World Wildlife Fund (WWF)) to firm opposition (e.g. the Vinalopó Water Users Committee, which
represents farmers who would receive the project's water).

Link to Cohesion Policy

On 12 December 2006, the European Commission (57) decided to co-fund the revised version of the project
with EUR 120 million, on the condition that a series of environmental conditions were met. This funding
is allocated through the ERDF within the framework of the Comunidad Valenciana OP for the 2000–2006
period, under heading 3.1 'Water supply for the population and economic activities'.

Link to the Water Framework Directive

This case touches on legal questions regarding timing. For example, whereas the construction of the project
started in 2002, the WFD only entered into force in December 2003. More recently, the Spanish Ministry of
Environment has announced that it would postpone the presentation of the new Jucar RBMP until 2012, or
three years in excess of the 2009 deadline set off in the WFD.

The Commission's move to fund the project nonetheless incorporates provisions related to the directive;
for example, it makes disbursements conditional upon progress observed on issues such as aquifer
preservation and restoration, water quality and other environmental conditions.

(56) According to Lasserre (2005), major public works took place in Spain during the Enlightment and, especially, in the late 1890s
and early 1900s, as the Regenerationist movement considered hydrological stress in a number of regions as a main factor of the
country's relative underdevelopment.
(57) Decision C(2006)6739 of 12 December 2006.

50 Territorial cohesion and water management in Europe: the spatial perspective

Cohesion Policy and the Water Framework Directive: the spatial context

Box 3.4 Kis-Balaton Water Protection System (Hungary)

Summary

The Kis-Balaton Water Protection System (KBWPS) project aims at improving the water quality of Lake
Balaton, and in doing so also expand a wetlands area. The project will raise the water level of the
Kis‑Balaton marshland areas, a Natura 2000 area and a Ramsar site, expanding it into adjacent parts of the
lower Zala-valley. The larger wetlands are expected to retain and utilise nutrients from agriculture and rural
settlements transported by the Zala river before they reach the lake (58). The larger wetlands would be a
natural-like environment that seeks to recreate the conditions existing approximately 200 years ago (59).

The first phase of the KBWPS took place in the 1980s with an aim of
retaining the nutrients from the lake. The KBWPS reconstructed the
former marshland in the area of the lower part of the main inflow, the
Zala river. The first phase of the System, the Hidvegi Pond, was created
in 1985.

The current project is thus the second phase; it takes place in the area
of the Feneki Pond (60). This phase aims at:

• protecting the water quality of Lake Balaton;

• protecting and increasing the natural and ecological values;
• decreasing of the risk of floods.

The original plans for this phase focused on the first point, and were
modified following criticisms that the project as first conceived would
damage the wetlands, though questions about the project may
remain (61). Photo: By Koroknai, Péter (62)

Link to Cohesion Policy

Map 3.3 Map of the Hidvegi Pond and the
Feneki Pond (63)
The KBWPS is listed as one of the projects in
Hungary's 'Environment and Energy Operation'
programme (EEOP), which is part of the
Development Plan (64) for the EU budget cycle from
2007–2013.

(58) In the 18th century, the Kis-Balaton area was a natural filter of water reaching the Lake. In the 19th century, the water level of
Lake Balaton was lowered after the opening of the Sio sluice which caused the higher areas of the Kis-Balaton basin to dry out.
In consequence of the regulations, the area lost its function of protecting the water quality of Lake Balaton.
(59) See http://www.kisbalaton.hu/kis_balaton_water_protection_system.html for more details.
(60) See http://www.kisbalaton.hu/kbvrprojekt.html for more details.
(61) See http://www.bankwatch.org/billions/index.php for more details.
(62) See http://kisbalaton.hu/kis_balaton_fotopalyazat_2008_dijak.html#19 for more details.
(63) See http://www.map.hu/galeria/orig/1383_balaton_kisbal_minta_60e.jpg for more details.
(64) National Strategic Reference Framework (NSRF) in EU terminology.

Territorial cohesion and water management in Europe: the spatial perspective 51

Cohesion Policy and the Water Framework Directive: the spatial context

Box 3.4 Kis-Balaton Water Protection System (Hungary) (cont.)

The estimated total cost of the project is HUF 6 billion (EUR 26 million). The project is co-financed by EU
resources (European CF) and the national budget. The project was approved at national level and is now in
the process of public procurement. The implementation of the second phase of the project is projected to
end in 2012/2013 (65).

Map 3.4 Map of river basin sub-units in Hungary (66)

Link to the Water Framework Directive

Hungary has a single RBMP for national territory, articulated in sub-basins and sub-units. The Kis-Balaton
area is part of the Zala sub-unit of the Balaton sub-river basin. In Hungary's 2009 RBMP (67), the KBWPS is
listed as one of the high priorities in the RBMP for this sub-river basin (68).

The RBMP includes a number of measures to achieve good status of water bodies by 2015; among these
are landscape actions such as the restoration and improvement of filtering meadows, reservoirs and alluvial
deposit catchers (69).

Link to the key elements of territorial cohesion, focusing on the environment dimension

Harmonious and sustainable development

The Balaton area relies heavily on tourism, and thus the water quality of the lake is seen as a factor in local
development. At the same time, the project seeks to expand a wetland area (70).

Inherent features of territories

Kis-Balaton is one of the last sizeable wetland areas in Central Europe and it is protected by the Ramsar
Convention and as a Natura 2000 site. The area has a rich fauna (about 32 species of fish, frogs,
water‑salamanders, avifauna of 232 species, etc.) and flora (29 protected and 1 highly protected species).
Therefore, it is of particular importance to find a balance between the aims of improving the water quality
and protection of the ecosystem.

(65) See http://kisbalaton.hu/letoltesek/sajtoanyag_20090210.pdf for more details.

(66) See http://www.kvvm.hu/cimg/documents/Implementing_the_Water_Framework_Directive_in_Hungary_June_2010.pdf for more
details.
(67) River Basin Management Plan of Hungary. See http://www.vizeink.hu/files2/100505/Orszagos_VGT0516.pdf for more details. River
Basin Management Plan for the Balaton sub-river basin. See www.vizeink.hu/functions/get_file.php?f=files/vizeink.hu for more
details.
(68) River Basin Management Plan for the Zala sub-unit. See http://www.vizeink.hu/files/vizeink.hu_0407_4-1_Alegyseg_Zala.pdf for
more details.
(69) Environment and Energy Operational Programme. See http://www.nfu.hu/umft_operativ_programok for more details.
(70) See http://www.grid.unep.ch/activities/sustainable/balaton/index.php for more details.

52 Territorial cohesion and water management in Europe: the spatial perspective

Cohesion Policy and the Water Framework Directive: the spatial context

Box 3.4 Kis-Balaton Water Protection System (Hungary) (cont.)

Concentration

One of the reasons why the Kis-Balaton lost its function of protecting the water quality of Balaton was
the opening of the Sio Sluice, which connected it to Lake Balaton. This led to a decrease in the lake's
water level and the area dried up. Runoff from settlements, agricultural chemicals and increasing tourism
all contributed to the deterioration of water quality in Lake Balaton. Thus, the project helps to address
problems arising from concentration.

Connecting territories

The project also aims to restore the fish population in Lake Balaton by creating a natural link between the
Balaton and the Kis-Balaton.

Cooperation

No information available.

Sources:

• River Basin Management Plan of Hungary (http://www.vizeink.hu/files2/100505/Orszagos_VGT0516.

pdf), River Basin Management Plan for the Balaton sub-river basin and the Zala sub-unit (http://www.
vizeink.hu/functions/get_file.php?f=files/vizeink.hu, http://www.vizeink.hu/files/vizeink.hu_0407_4-
1_Alegyseg_Zala.pdf)
• Environment and Energy Operational programme 2007–2013 (http://www.nfu.hu/umft_operativ_
programok)
• Government decree No 2 317/2004 (XII. 11.)
• EU and EIB funding in central and eastern Europe (http://www.bankwatch.org/billions/index.php)
• Website of the project (http://kisbalaton.hu/index.html)

3.5 Cross-border and trans-national developing new tools and methods. Many of the
cooperation projects have addressed flood management. Several
examples are provided below:
There are 52 cross-border cooperation programmes
across the EU; these programmes carry out • FLAPP (Flood Awareness & Prevention Policy in
joint activities in neighbouring Member States. border areas) ran from 2005 to 2007 and brought
Their projects can include the joint management together 35 partners in 12 countries to work on
of natural resources and the development of flood forecasting and information as well as
common infrastructure. One example is the management during floods. The project also
ongoing cross‑border Operational Programme analysed spatial measures for flood prevention,
(OP) 'Romania-Bulgaria', which is undertaking including sustainable flood management that
joint flood prevention work along the Danube river supports areas rich in biodiversity, and it sought
between these two Member States. Another is the to strengthen cross-border cooperation on flood
'Latvia-Lithuania' OP, which is carrying out work management (71).
to improve water quality in small settlements. • Flood Wise (Interreg IVC) will run from
2010 to 2012 and will also focus on flood risk
There are 13 trans-national cooperation programmes management in cross-border river basins. The
across the EU, set up by region. Under these project brings together water managers and
programmes, a large number of projects have experts from 6 international river basins that
been set up to address water management issues, cover 10 European countries (72).

(71) See http://www.flapp.org for more details.

(72) See http://www.floodwise.eu for more details.

Territorial cohesion and water management in Europe: the spatial perspective 53

Cohesion Policy and the Water Framework Directive: the spatial context

• The SAWA (Strategic Alliance for integrated to the Netherlands. The work supported the
Water Management Actions) Programmes preparation of the 2005 'Article 5' report for river
seek to strengthen implementation of the basin characterisation under the WFD (75).
Floods Directive. Its actions have included the • ELLA (Elbe-Labe Austria, Czech Republic,
development of pilot flood risk management Germany, Hungary, Portugal) ran from 2003 to
plans, as well as pilot work to integrate flood 2006 and was financed via CADSES. It brought
planning into RBMPs (73) (Germany, the together spatial planning, water management
Netherlands, Norway, United Kingdom). and agriculture authorities in the countries
• The MEDMANN project ran from 2006 to 2008. involved to prepare spatial planning strategies
It sought to develop tools for integrated water for flood risk management. A key result was the
resources management, in particular to address development of flood hazard maps for the Elbe
drought and water scarcity (74). River; the project thus provided a pilot test of a
• The Scaldit programme (comprising Belgium, key step required under the Floods Directive (76).
France, and the Netherlands under Interreg IIIB)
ran from 2002 to 2005, and developed and tested The trans-national projects in particular have thus
guidance documents for a common approach to played a role in supporting the implementation of
the characterisation of the Scheldt river basin, EU water legislation and in strengthening capacities
which runs from France through Belgium and methods for governance.

(73) See http://www.sawa-project.eu/index.php for more details.

(74) See http://www.meddman.org/ for more details.
(75) Flemish Environment Agency, Scheldt River Basin District — France, Belgium, The Netherlands: SCALDIT, undated.
(76) Based on http://www.cadses.net/projects/apprpro.html?projectId=1511&topic=projects/apprpro — see for more details.

54 Territorial cohesion and water management in Europe: the spatial perspective

Building cooperation across borders and in 'macro-regions'

4 Building cooperation across borders

and in 'macro-regions'

The WFD calls for cooperation among countries with the Baltic Sea Region. The 2009 strategy for this
shared river basins — leading to, where possible, the region is intended to provide a practical approach
development of common RBMPs. In several shared for the implementation of territorial cohesion.
RBDs — including the Danube (77), the Rhine (78) Moreover, this strategy is closely linked to
and the Scheldt (79) — common RBMPs have been implementation of the MSFD, which extends the
prepared. For the Danube, an articulated planning WFD's approach to the EU's regional seas.
has been used: in addition to the basin‑wide plan,
more detailed plans have been prepared for major
sub-basins such as the Tisza River, a Danube 4.1 Shared river basins: the Albufeira
tributary. Below these are national and regional Agreement
RBMPs.
The case study below describes current cooperation
This section reviews cooperation at two different between Spain and Portugal, which share several
scales. Many river basins are shared between river basins. These countries reached an agreement
two countries, and this section first reviews the on water management in 1998, before the WFD was
cooperation between two EU Member States, Spain concluded, and they have used this framework for
and Portugal, for their shared rivers. The other joint work related to the Directive. As yet, however,
example looks at one of Europe's 'macro‑regions', the two countries have produced separate RBMPs.

Box 4.1 The Albufeira Convention between Spain and Portugal

Short description

The Convention on Cooperation for the Protection and Sustainable Use of Water in Shared Rivers
(or Albufeira Agreement) was signed on 30 November 1998 and entered into force on 17 January 2000.
It aims at strengthening cooperation between Spain and Portugal to encourage the sustainable use of
shared water courses (Tajo, Mio, Limia, Duero and Guadiana Rivers (80)), as well as maintaining and
improving the ecological status of shared water bodies.

The Albufeira Agreement provides a framework for cooperation between Spanish and Portuguese authorities
in a number of fields related to shared watercourses, including sustainable resource utilisation, EIA and
risk prevention. The implementation of the Albufeira Agreement is coordinated by an intergovernmental
technical body, the Commission for the Application and Development of the Convention (CADC), which is in
turn divided into five working groups. A major step toward more integrated territorial governance was seen
in the creation of a Joint Technical Secretariat at the 2nd Conference of the Parties in 2008.

(77) See http://www.icpdr.org/icpdr-pages/drpc.htm for more details about the Danube River Protection Convention.
(78) See http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/environment/water_protection_management/l28115_en.htm for more details about
the Convention for the Protection of the Rhine.
(79) See http://www.minbuza.nl/en/key-topics/treaties/search-the-treaty-database/2002/12/010581.html for more information on the
Scheldt Treaty.
(80) The Spanish names of the rivers concerned are used in this report.

Territorial cohesion and water management in Europe: the spatial perspective 55

Building cooperation across borders and in 'macro-regions'

Box 4.1 The Albufeira Convention between Spain and Portugal (cont.)

Role of spatial analysis

To some extent, the Albufeira Agreement combines river basin-oriented and spatial planning approaches.
If fully implemented, this convergence can have far-reaching environmental as well as socio-economic
implications as shared river basins account for 46 % of the continental Iberian surface. The three main river
basins are the Duero, Tajo and Guadiana.

Planning aspects are articulated along the following lines of action:

• a protocol (2008) for carrying out SEAs on a cross-boundary basis, focusing on the environmental
impacts of water projects (e.g. Alqueva Dam);
• permanent information exchange of data on: water flows, water quality, storage levels, river basin
planning processes, national water resources plans and hydraulic schemes;
• contingency planning on, and management of, extreme situations (e.g. droughts, floods), especially in
the Tajo and Guadiana river basins;
• definition of minimal flows of the cross-boundary rivers at the Spanish-Portuguese border;
• focus on accountability and on participation by civil society in the activities under the Agreement
(e.g. the working group on information exchange) via public consultations, awareness-raising campaigns
and the dissemination of relevant information.

Link to implementation of the Water Framework Directive

The Albufeira Agreement serves the implementation of the EU WFD at two different levels.

First, even though the Albufeira Agreement was signed prior to the adoption of the WFD, it and the
CADC supports one of the key provisions of the latter, which is contained in Article 13.2: 'In the case of
an international river basin district falling entirely within the Community, Member States shall ensure
coordination with the aim of producing a single international river basin management plan [...].'

As yet, however, single RBMPs have not been produced for the shared rivers.

Second, the Albufeira Agreement and the CADC explicitly acknowledge EU law with regard to water quality.
Moreover, a working group was created on the 'WFD and Water Quality'. The main tasks of this working
group with regard to the implementation of the WFD are as follows:

• coordination of joint technical initiatives and definition of priority actions toward the implementation of
the WFD (including studies for RBMPs);
• monitoring and information sharing on water quality assessment in cross-border areas;
• ongoing assessment of compliance with the WFD and related EU directives;
• studies for better appraisal of the technical conditions of water in the Guadiana Delta.

Link to the key elements of territorial cohesion, focusing on the environment dimension

Harmonious and sustainable development

The Albufeira Agreement signals a paradigm shift in a long history of Spanish-Portuguese cooperation on
water-related issues. Traditionally considered as a mere resource for production (either for agricultural
irrigation or hydropower), freshwater and related habitats are being increasingly acknowledged for their
ecological values.

Inherent features of territories

The previous short-term focus on the exploitation of freshwater resources from the shared river basins
has resulted in severe degradation of the water quality and the regional flora and fauna in and around the
rivers. The WFD calls for the attainment of good status, including good ecological status, in all European
water bodies, pointing to the need to restore and preserve the natural capital of the river basins. The
Albufeira Agreement supports this, for example through its specification of minimum water flows.

56 Territorial cohesion and water management in Europe: the spatial perspective

Building cooperation across borders and in 'macro-regions'

Box 4.1 The Albufeira Convention between Spain and Portugal (cont.)

Concentration and connections between territories

The links of the Agreement with the concentration- and connection-related dimensions of territorial
cohesion can be seen in the Duero river basin, particularly regarding water supply needs. A joint working
group is preparing guidance to modulate the intensity of hydropower production to support ecological
functions in the river basin. This is of great importance given that both Spain and, especially, Portugal rely
heavily on large-scale dams in the Duero basin for their electricity production, with new dams in planning
or under construction: a total of, respectively, 55 dams in Spain and 17 in Portugal are projected for 2020
compared to 32 and 12 in 1998 (81). It is possible, however, that the WFD's requirements for good status,
including good ecological status, may come into conflict with these national hydropower plans; moreover,
this potential conflict may arise within the two countries more than between them. For example, in 2008,
a number of Portuguese NGOs sent a joint letter to European Commission President Barroso to request the
suspension of the Portuguese Dam Plan (PDP) on the grounds that it was contrary to WFD provisions and
that its economic benefits and potential environmental impacts remained unclear (82).

Cooperation

The Albufeira Agreement provides an example of cooperation among EU Member States on shared river
basins. The joint secretariat created in 2008 will provide coordination in the collection, analysis and
dissemination of technical information on issues including environmental risks and sustainability.

Sources:
• Convenio sobre cooperación para la protección y el aprovechamiento sostenible de las aguas de las
cuencas hidrográficas hispano-portuguesas. Signed in Albufeira (Portugal), 30 November 1998.
• Comisión para la Aplicación y Desarrollo del Convenio sobre Cooperación para la Protección y el
Aprovechamiento Sostenible de las Aguas de las Cuencas Hidrográficas Hispano — Portuguesas, official
Internet site: http://www.cadc-albufeira.org
• Dominguez, D., Manser, R. and Ort, C., 2005, No problems on Río Duero (Spain) — Rio Douro (Portugal)?,
The Science and Politics of International Freshwater Management, Lecture notes and case studies, Swiss
Federal Institute of Technology, Zurich.
• Maia, R., 2000, Sharing the Waters of the Iberian Peninsula (http://www.iwra.siu.edu/pdf/Maia.pdf)
accessed 17 March 2012.

4.2 The Baltic Sea Regional Strategy: macro-regional strategy, the BSRS is a model for
territorial cohesion in a other regional efforts including the EU Strategy
macro‑region (83) for the Danube Region, adopted by the European
Commission in December 2010.
4.2.1 Overview
The case study considers the interface between
The European Commission considers the Baltic the BSRS, the WFD and the MSFD, in particular in
Sea Region Strategy (BSRS) 'an ideal case for the light of the issue of nutrient pollution in the Baltic
application of a territorial cohesion approach' Sea, a key issue for the Baltic Sea — nutrients and
(EC, 2009a). It is part of a broader effort to the resulting eutrophication — are specifically
implement territorial cohesion via 'macro-regions' addressed under the BSRS. Most nutrients flow into
that cover several Member States; the ambition is the Baltic Sea from rivers; a key source is the runoff
to provide a coordination mechanism for policies of agricultural chemicals (Håkansson and Bryhn,
with territorial impact (EP, 2010). As the first 2008).

(81) Iberaqua (2002), quoted in Dominguez et al. (2005).

(82) For an overview of the main arguments of opponents to the PDP, please refer to http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/wfd/
library?l=/framework_directive/implementation_conventio/2009_conference/presentations_speeches/hydromorphology/session_v-
4-chainhopdf/_EN_1.0_&a=d as well as the official website of the Nueva Cultura del Agua Foundation: http://www.unizar.es/fnca/
index3.php?id=3&pag=11 for more information.
(83) The retrieval of documents and the interpretation is shaped by emerging insights from the EU Interreg-funded project Baltic
COMPASS ('Comprehensive Policy Actions and Investments in Sustainable Solutions in Agriculture in the Baltic Sea Region').

Territorial cohesion and water management in Europe: the spatial perspective 57

Building cooperation across borders and in 'macro-regions'

The 2008 MSFD 'extends EU water legislation to and is expected to provide a framework for the
the marine environment' (84). The MFSD is closely Directive's implementation in the Baltic region;
connected with the WFD on several levels. There the Helsinki Commission, which coordinates
is a spatial overlap as the WFD extends to coastal implementation of the Convention and the 2007
waters and specifically to waters within one nautical Baltic Sea Action Plan developed through this
mile from the coast line. The MFSD uses a similar Committee are expected to provide a key role for
planning framework, on the basis of marine regions implementation.
where the WFD uses RBDs. Under the MSFD,
Member States are to undertake a series of key steps, 4.2.2 The Baltic Sea Regional Strategy
including the following:
The implementation of the Strategy is organised
• produce a comprehensive assessment of the in terms of four pillars; the first pillar focuses on
marine environment by 2012; environmental sustainability. The pillars are then
• characterise the standard of 'Good Environmental divided into priority areas (Table 4.1). For each
Status'; priority area, a set of flagship projects have been
• establish monitoring programmes; identified; by their titles, however, these may
• develop a marine strategy for own waters contribute to several priority areas.
reflecting the overall perspective of the marine
region. Eutrophication is addressed specifically under
priority area 1, coordinated by Finland's Ministry of
The Baltic Sea is designated as a marine region Environment. However, many linkages exist with
under this Directive. The MSFD cites the other priority areas, including priority area 9 on
Convention on the Protection of the Baltic Sea, agriculture, forestry and fisheries.

Table 4.1 Organisation of the implementation of the strategy

Pillars Priority areas

Pillar 1: To Make The Baltic Sea Region 1. To reduce nutrient inputs to the sea to acceptable levels
An Environmentally Sustainable Place
2. To preserve natural zones and biodiversity, including fisheries
3. To reduce the use and impact of hazardous substances
4. To become a model region for clean shipping
5. To mitigate and adapt to climate
Pillar 2: To Make The Baltic Sea Region 6. To remove hindrances to the internal market in the Baltic Sea
A Prosperous Place Region including to improve cooperation in the customs and tax
area
7. To exploit the full potential of the region in research and innovation
8. Implementing the Small Business Act: to promote
entrepreneurship, strengthen SMEs and increase the efficient use of
human resources
9. To reinforce sustainability of agriculture, forestry and fisheries
Pillar 3: To Make The Baltic Sea Region 10. To improve the access to, and the efficiency and security of the
An Accessible And Attractive Place energy markets
11. To improve internal and external transport links
12. To maintain and reinforce attractiveness of the Baltic Sea Region in
particular through education, tourism and health
Pillar 4: To Make The Baltic Sea Region 13. To become a leading region in maritime safety and security
A Safe And Secure Place 14. To reinforce protection from major emergencies at sea and on land
15. To decrease the volume of, and harm done by, cross-border crime

Source: EC, 2009b (see also this document for list of flagship projects as of 2009).

(84) European Commission, Water Note 11. From the rivers to the sea: Linking with the new Marine Strategy Framework Directive,
December 2008.

58 Territorial cohesion and water management in Europe: the spatial perspective

Building cooperation across borders and in 'macro-regions'

The European Commission (Directorate-General the EU budget/programming period 2007–2013

Regional Policy (DG REGIO)) is the main (EP, 2010). However, EUR 20 million have been
coordinating body for the BSRS, operating with allocated, predominantly from Cohesion Policy
support from a high level group of representatives funds. The Flagship Projects will be mainly
from all 27 Member States. Actual implementation financed by these funds.
responsibility lies with Member State governments,
through use of existing institutional structures Interreg (now trans-national) projects play a key
and an expected enhanced coordination and role, and the Baltic Region has a high number of
collaboration across existing policies (EP, 2010). Interreg projects supporting regional cooperation
As environmental issues in the Baltic Sea Region in relation to agriculture and environment (SEI,
often involve third party states, cooperation with 2010).
the Russian Federation is coordinated under the
Northern Dimension Policy Framework (NDPF), 4.2.3 Involving agriculture
which provides the basis for external aspects of
cooperation in the Baltic Sea region. Addressing agricultural practices and their
pollution will be a key issue for the implementation
In addition to the priority areas, the BSRS also has of the BSRS. While the Strategy itself can play
a set of horizontal actions. These include initiatives a key role in achieving progress in this area,
for spatial planning of the region's land and of sea developments in agriculture and agricultural
areas as well as support for the implementation of policy will also be important. This suggests that the
the MSFD (EC, 2009b). Further, the attention to the challenges go beyond the areas of environmental
environmental degradation in the Baltic Sea Region and cohesion policy, as the Common Agricultural
may be reflected in the fact that the 'environmental Policy (CAP) is an important element.
pillar' has received the highest number of priority
areas. Within the region, Helcom has recently created a
Baltic Agriculture and Environment Forum, which
The Strategy did not come with specific budget could play a role in terms of bringing this policy
lines attached as it was launched in the middle of sector into the Strategy.

Territorial cohesion and water management in Europe: the spatial perspective 59

Addressing future challenges

5 Addressing future challenges

The RBMPs under the WFD are to be renewed every Climate change impacts may affect water
six years. This provides an opportunity to address consumption and other practices in a range of
new issues that arise. In this context, however, it economic sectors, from agriculture to households,
is valuable to also track longer term trends and and these impacts may in turn affect river basins.
challenges. Adaptation to climate change is an
issue of growing importance for the EU. Other
key questions include changes in agriculture and 5.2 Land cover changes: agriculture
changes in population.
Several case studies in previous sections have noted
the importance of agriculture in terms of river
5.1 Adapting to climate change basin management, territorial cohesion and also
spatial planning. Two of the projects supported by
Climate change is expected to have major impacts Cohesion Policy funds described in Chapter 3 are
on water bodies across Europe. In southern Europe, related to agriculture: the Jucar-Vinalopó water
higher levels of rainfall are expected (and indeed transfer in Spain provides irrigation water, and
have been seen in recent years). As a result, flooding the restored Kis-Balaton wetlands in Hungary are
may increase. intended to absorb nutrients from farming. For the
Baltic Sea, perhaps the most important common
In southern Europe, summer rainfall is forecast to environmental problem to be addressed under the
decrease and summer temperatures to increase. regional strategy is eutrophication, which is closely
According to an estimate by the Intergovernmental linked to agricultural runoff.
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), summer
temperatures in Spain and Portugal could rise One ongoing agricultural trend in Europe is the
by 7 degrees by 2070. In the Alps and some other loss of extensive farmland, in particular high-nature
mountain ranges, glaciers may continue to recede; value farmland that supports biodiversity (85). In
this factor too will reduce summer water flows. many countries and regions, this farmland is a
As a result, water scarcity could become more historical landscape, and the abandonment of this
widespread and droughts more frequent. Reduced land means the reduction of an inherent feature of
water flows could increase eutrophication problems the territory, along with potential biodiversity and
in rivers, lakes and coastal waters (EC, 2008b). habitat losses.

In a 2009 Communication on climate change The decline in extensive farmland is matched by

adaptation, the European Commission called for an intensification of agricultural practices in many
the 2015 round of RBMPs to be 'climate proofed', other areas, together with a loss of farmland to
and climate change impacts should be integrated urban sprawl, transport networks and other artificial
into actions to implement the Floods Directive surfaces. Farmland is lost especially in densely
(EC, 2009c). populated regions, such as the Po Valley in northern
Italy. In northern Italy and other areas, urban sprawl
Many European countries have already started takes over rich agricultural soils. While many of
to address climate change impacts in their water these are used intensively, the conversion from
policies; an example is the 'Room for the River' agricultural to urban uses may, however, lead to
programme in the Netherlands, described in higher pollution burdens on water bodies.
Chapter 2.

(85) Many of the habitat types listed in the EU Habitats Directive — 55 of the 231 — depend on or benefit from extensive agricultural
practices (EEA, 2010a).

60 Territorial cohesion and water management in Europe: the spatial perspective

Addressing future challenges

A range of factors will influence the evolution of of the world. If demand for EU food exports does
agricultural land in Europe in coming decades, increase, this is likely to fuel further intensification
together with the resulting effects in terms of of agriculture, and thus increased runoff to water
landscape and water bodies. Three areas are key: the bodies — and possibly further demands for
EU's CAP; EU energy policy, in particular in terms of irrigation.
biofuels; and global food demand.

In November 2010, the European Commission 5.3 Population shifts

presented its proposal for the future CAP (EC, 2010),
which identifies three main objectives: While Europe's population overall is expected to
remain quite stable in coming decades, several
• food production; countries and regions will see a growth in
• sustainable management of natural resources and inhabitants and others will see a decline.
climate action;
• balanced territorial development. In France, for example, the overall population is
expected to grow by 11 % between 2010 and 2040,
The proposal is notable in the role it gives the with the south-west regions of the country showing
management of natural resources, including water higher population growth, 16 %. This trend is not
and biodiversity, climate mitigation and adaptation new, as the south-west has been the fastest growing
and also the territorial dimension. The debate on the region of France over the past 10 years.
shape of the CAP after 2014 is only starting; a key
issue will be the translation of policy objectives into As a result of the growing population, the
instruments. south‑west is expected to experience further
development on the periphery of cities such as
The EU's Climate Action and Renewable Energy Toulouse, replacing agricultural land. This growing
(CARE) package, a set of legislations adopted in urban development will affect water resources.
April 2009, includes the target that 10 % of EU Without good planning approaches, land pressure
transport fuel come from renewable sources by could increase in zones that are easily flooded.
2020. Biofuels from crops are seen as a key path A growing population also implies growing
to meeting this target, and their production has water consumption, together with higher levels of
increased rapidly: approximately four-fold between wastewater to be treated.
2004 and 2008 (86). Current biofuels are grown
through intensive agriculture, and their ongoing To address these issues, the Water Agency for the
expansion could increase the impacts on water Adour-Garonne RBD in the south-west of France has
bodies across Europe. prepared a guidance document for local authorities
and stakeholders on issues to address in local urban
Global demand for food in coming decades will planning documents (PLU and SCOT) to ensure
also affect Europe's agriculture. Over the next their integration with the RBMPs and to support
20 years, the global population is expected to good management of water resources (Agence de
increase by almost 30 % — however, incomes are l'Eau Adour-Garonne, 2010).
currently forecast to increase much faster, over 80 %,
with much of this growth expected in emerging While these guidelines provide an approach for
economies, especially in Asia. These forecasts better integration, population growth can still pose
suggest that agricultural production in the world important dilemmas for spatial development and
will need to double, as rising incomes will increase water management, as seen in the following two
demand for meat and other products that require case studies.
high inputs (EEA, 2010b). These trends may lead
to an increase in demand for agricultural exports In the Netherlands, the 'Randstad', the country's
from Europe, though this result is uncertain as it core urban area that includes Amsterdam and
will depend on the extent to which agricultural Rotterdam, is expected to continue growing. The
productivity and land area increase in other parts Netherlands has traditionally lived close to the

(86) Directorate-General Agriculture and Rural Development (DG AGRI), based on data from eBio, EBB, EurObserv'ER.

Territorial cohesion and water management in Europe: the spatial perspective 61

Addressing future challenges

water, and the case study of the IJmeer Vision Water Agreement (Nationale Water Akkoord) (88).
(Appendix 2) shows how existing water bodies Moreover, they are relevant for other planning
and their natural values are seen as an asset for documents, such as the provincial structural
future development. This approach is, however, concepts, the provincial water management plans
contested by groups that wish instead to retain the and regional plans.
undeveloped landscape of the IJmeer as a value
within a crowded region. Another example is the Dublin water supply project
(Appendix 3) where the Dublin metropolitan region
This vision is part of a national effort in the has prepared a plan to build a new water transfer
Netherlands to consider long-term planning needs from western Ireland to the city, to meet the needs
and approaches. Provinces, municipalities and of a population that is projected to increase in
water boards across the country have prepared river coming decades. This project includes the creation
basin visions (stroomgebiedvisies) that look to 2050. of a new park as part of the water transfer system.
These visions identify room for water retention Here too, water is seen an asset for development.
measures and other practical measures, such as The project raises questions, however, about impacts
restoration of streams (87). The time frame allows the on the Shannon River, the planned source for the
consideration of possible climate change impacts. water, as well as broader issues in terms of spatial
The regional visions have been used in the National development.

(87) See http://www.waterland.net/index.cfm/site/Nederland%20Waterland/pageid/EAC0DE42-FEA8-FE97-DCDE7080052912F8/index.

cfm for more details.
(88) To manage the effects of climate change to water in the Netherlands, central government, the Inter Provincial Consultation, the
Water Boards and the Association of Dutch Municipalities concluded an Agreement on Water Management for the 21st Century in
February 2001.

62 Territorial cohesion and water management in Europe: the spatial perspective

Conclusions

6 Conclusions

RBMPs play a central role in the implementation will need to bring together these different
of the WFD. In many parts of the EU, however, elements.
stronger links are needed between the RBMPs • Finally, a set of tools that can support this work.
and other planning and programming processes, These can include SEA as well as REC. The WFD
such as spatial planning as well as Cohesion Fund calls for economic analysis, for example of cost
OPs; strong links would help to address potential recovery and also of projects that may delay or
conflicts with these other policy areas and build run counter to the objective of good water status
synergies with them. set out in the directive.

The demands on river basin management planning Bringing together these different elements will be
will grow in the next cycle of plans, for 2015; a major challenge. Two perspectives can play an
EU requirements and policy recommendations call important role in providing a unifying element.
on RBMPs to bring together a broad and growing One is that of preparing for the future, and thus
array of elements, including: preparing approaches that are 'climate proof' in the
face of existing forecasts for climate impacts. The
• flood risk management; other unifying element is the spatial perspective.
• drought and water scarcity;
• climate change adaptation. For both themes, it would be useful to bring together
existing knowledge and approaches, such as those
The revision of RBMPs in 2015 consequently will developed under trans-national projects as well as
need to bring together a broad range of issues. At the current good practices in EU Member States and
same time, the plans can be a locus for integration RBDs.
across administrative boundaries and across policy
areas. They can do so by bringing together a range The review and case studies in this analysis have
of concepts, such as green infrastructure and shown that Cohesion Policy financing has strong
ecosystem services, as well as analytical tools. interactions with the WFD and other EU water
legislation. Cohesion Policy can support Member
The framework (Figure 6.1) illustrates the different States by financing infrastructure to meet legislative
elements to be addressed in the preparation of requirements, in particular in high-cost areas such
RBMPs. wastewater treatment. In other areas, such as inland
navigation, infrastructure investments can bring
• Vertical integration will mainly involve economic benefits, including in a territorial context,
coordination with administrative areas. Some but threaten the inherent features of territories;
may be contained within the RBMP, and others in this case, water bodies as well as habitats and
will overlap partially as they are based on ecosystems linked to rivers. Cohesion Policy can
administrative and political boundaries rather also support projects that bring together regions to
than natural geographic areas. develop tools and methods for the implementation
• Horizontal integration brings together of EU water legislation.
policy areas and interests; this will require a
participative process, possibly a shared planning The support, conflicts and potential synergies
approach as described in Chapter 2. illustrated in this analysis affect the spatial
• The framework identifies a range of concepts dimension of water management, and thus also the
and methods that can support river basin environmental dimension of territorial cohesion.
planning, such as spatial planning and flood These cases show the need for stronger links
risk management. These are in addition to the between Cohesion Policy and EU water legislation.
monitoring and characterisation requirements A key step would be to refer to the WFD and
set out in the WFD. The overall planning concept its objectives in future regulations governing

Territorial cohesion and water management in Europe: the spatial perspective 63

Conclusions

the Cohesion Policy funds. The objectives and To some extent, the new 'macro-regions' such as the
requirements of EU water legislation should also Baltic Sea and the Danube provide a link between
be explicitly considered in the SEAs for Cohesion natural geographic areas and Cohesion Policy
Policy documents, such as future OPs. priorities. These initiatives have only begun, and
thus it is early to judge their results; moreover, many
It will be useful to consider approaches to link key project impacts are best considered at a lower
Cohesion Policy spending to the implementation scale, such as the river basins flowing into the Baltic
of RBMPs, including measures to tackle floods and the sub-basins of the Danube.
and droughts, instead of allocating them on a
project‑by‑project basis. For example, OPs could be The case studies of the Jucar-Vinalopó water transfer
linked to the programme of measures in RBMPs. and the Kis-Balaton project show the importance of
This method would face a timing mismatch, as public participation and environment assessment
the next spending cycle is due to start in 2014, and reviewing and modifying potentially damaging
while the revised RBMPs will be made in late 2015. investments. Their results suggest several areas for
Finding a solution, for example through a bridge action:
between current and future RBMPs, for the gap
years could be valuable in ensuring that Cohesion • strengthening public participation in Cohesion
Policy spending for water protection is more Policy, particularly in the process of designing
effective. OPs;

Figure 6.1 River basin management plans: a framework for integration

Vertical integration, e.g. Horizontal integration, e.g.

EU institutions Cohesion Policy
Other Member States Spatial policies
(for cross-border RBDs) Coordination and conflict resolution
National mechanisms among institutions
Regional Stakeholder participation
Local

River basin management plan

Tools, e.g. Concepts, methods and

Economic analysis approaches, e.g.
Forecasts and scenarios for Spatial planning
climate, population, other factors Green infrastructure
Regional environmental Ecosystem services
characterisation Climate adaptation
SEA/EIA Flood risk management
Water accounting Drought and water scarcity
management

Source: Adapted from Nielsen et al., 2009.

64 Territorial cohesion and water management in Europe: the spatial perspective

Conclusions

• improving the use of SEA and other methods, projects that support water management. Many of
and in particular strengthening spatial analysis of the projects have developed tools and approaches
programme and project impacts; for implementation of the WFD, Floods Directive
• strengthening the European Commission's and other legislation. It will be useful to ensure
oversight of large-scale investment projects that wider dissemination of their results and products,
could affect water bodies negatively. to draw lessons across different projects and to
highlight key issues to be addressed in the future,
Finally, the analysis has presented a few examples such as climate change adaptation and green
of trans-national and cross-border cooperation infrastructure.

Territorial cohesion and water management in Europe: the spatial perspective 65

References

References

ADE, 2009, Ex-Post evaluation of Cohesion Policy water_note10_climate_change_floods_droughts.pdf)

programmes 2000-2006 co-financed by the European accessed 16 March 2012.
Fund for Regional Development (Objectives 1 and 2)
– Work Package 5b: Environment and Climate change, EC, 2009a, Territorial cohesion: unleashing the
Analysis for Economic Decisions (ADE), Study for territorial potential, Background document to the
the European Commission, Final Report – Volume 1. Conference on Cohesion Policy and Territorial
Development: Make Use of the Territorial Potential!,
Agence de l'Eau Adour-Garonne, 2010, L'eau dans DG Regional Policy (http://ec.europa.eu/regional_
les documents d'urbanisme – Guide méthodologique policy/archive/consultation/terco/kiruna_20091211.
Aqua Consult Baltic, 2010, Small WWTPs in Estonia pdf) accessed 16 March 2012.
Technologies and availability (présentation).
EC, 2009b, Communication from the Commission to
Camagni, R., 2007, 'Territorial development policies the European Parliament, the Council, the European
in the European Model of Society', pp. 129–144 in: Economic and Social Committee and the Committee
Faludi, A. (ed.), Territorial Cohesion and the European of the Regions concerning the European Union
Model of Society, Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region (COM(2009) 248
Cambridge, MA. final).

Carter J., 2007, 'Spatial planning, water and the EC, 2009c, White Paper 'Adapting to climate
Water Framework Directive: insights from theory change: Towards a European framework for action'
and practice', The Geographical Journal, 173(4) (COM(2009) 147 final).
330–342.
EC, 2010, Communication 'The CAP towards 2020:
Dworak T. et al, Assessment of agriculture measures Meeting the food, natural resources and territorial
included in the draft River Basin Management Plans, challenges of the future (http://ec.europa.eu/
Ecologic Institute, 2010 agriculture/cap-post-2013/communication/index_
en.htm) accessed 15 March 2012.
van Dyk, J. M., 2006, 'Water Assessment in the
Netherlands', Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, EEA, 2005, Effectiveness of urban wastewater treatment
24(3). policies in selected countries: an EEA pilot study, EEA
Report No 2/2005, European Environment Agency.
EC, 2003, Guidance document n. 11 – Planning
process, Common Implementation Strategy for the EEA, 2007, Assessing water quality in Europe using
Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC). stratification techniques, EEA Technical report
No 10/2007, European Environment Agency.
EC, 2008a, Communication from the Commission
to the Council, the European Parliament, the EEA, 2009, Territorial cohesion: Analysis of
Committee of the Regions and the European environmental aspects of the EU Cohesion Policy in
Economic and Social Committee 'Green Paper on selected countries, EEA Technical report No 10/2009,
Territorial Cohesion: Turning territorial diversity European Environment Agency.
into strength' (COM(2008) 616 final).
EEA, 2010a, 10 messages for 2010 – Agricultural
EC, 2008b, Water Note no. 10 – Climate change: ecosystems, European Environment Agency.
addressing floods, droughts and changing
aquatic ecosystems, DG ENV (http://ec.europa.eu/ EEA, 2010b, The European Environment – state and
environment/water/participation/pdf/waternotes/ outlook 2010, European Environment Agency.

66 Territorial cohesion and water management in Europe: the spatial perspective

References

EEA, 2010c, The territorial dimension of environmental Republic of Estonia, 2007, Operational Programme
sustainability, EEA Technical report No 9/2010, for the Development of the Living Environment,
European Environment Agency. CI number: 2007EE161PO002.

ENEA, 2006, Making the Structural and Cohesion Riza et al., 2004, Water Assessment in the
Funds Water-Positive, The European Network of Netherlands, RIZa (Institute for Inland Water
Environmental Authorities. Management and Waste Water Treatment) and
Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water
ENMaR, 2007, Water: local planning and management. Management.
Practical examples from England, Germany,
Latvia, Spain and Sweden, European Network of Rudzite, M. and Filho, W. L. 2009, 'Overview of
Municipalities and Rivers. River Basin Management Practices in Baltic Sea
Region Countries', Waterpraxis (Interreg IVB), July.
EP, 2010, Committee on Regional Development,
2010, Working Document on the European Union SEA, 2008, Strategic Environmental Assessment
Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region and the role (SEA Phase II) Scoping report, June 2008 (http://
of macro-regions in the future cohesion policy, www.iwai.ie/download/SEAPh2-ScopingReport.
European Parliament (DT\799506EN.doc). pdf).

Håkansson L. and Bryhn A.C., 2008. Eutrophication SEI, 2010, Transboundary cooperation in
in the Baltic Sea. Present situation, nutrient transport agro‑environmental governance: Lessons from
processes, remedial strategies, Environmental Science past and ongoing Interreg projects, Stockholm
and Engineering, Springer. Environment Institute, Baltic COMPASS Project
Report (http://balticcompass.org) accessed 16 March
Moss, T., 2004, 'The Governance of land use in 2012.
river basins: prospects for overcoming problems of
institutional interplay with the EU water framework Tarmo O., 2007, Development of waste water treatment
directive', Land Use Policy , 21, 85–94. in rural areas with the support of the Cohesion Fund's
projects, Audit report No. OSIV-2-1/24.
Nielsen H. et al., 2009, Proposal for an analysis
framework for River Basin Management Projects, WWF, 2005, EU Funding for Environment: A handbook
Waterpraxis — work package 3, Deliverable D3.1b for the 2007–13 programming period, World Wide
(www.waterpraxis.net) accessed 15 March 2012. Fund for Nature.

Territorial cohesion and water management in Europe: the spatial perspective 67

Appendix 1

Appendix 1 Potential key elements of the

environmental dimension of
territorial cohesion

Green Paper key elements of Potential key elements of the Potential criteria to evaluate
territorial cohesion environmental dimension of the environmental dimension of
territorial cohesion territorial cohesion
Harmonious development Harmonious and sustainable • Does the policy seek to integrate
development environmental limits and carrying
• Building bridges between
capacity, as a potential constraint
economic effectiveness, social • Achieving sustainable
on economic growth?
cohesion and ecological balance development, and thus
integrating economic, social and • Does the policy seek to utilise a
• Putting sustainable development
environmental policy goals and high quality environment as a
at the heart of policy design
actions valuable good/service?
• Environmental limits and carrying
capacity (as a constraint on
economic growth)
• Utilising a high quality
environment as a good and
service (e.g. recreation,
agriculture, tourism)
Inherent features of territories: Inherent features of territories: • Does the policy seek to promote/
citizens able to use the inherent natural features are protected for utilise/respect the inherent
features of their territories future generations environmental features and
assets of different territories?
• Transforming diversity into an • Maintaining/improving natural
asset capital — maintaining local • Does the policy consider current
features and environmental and future environmental
• Making best use of territorial
quality vulnerabilities and challenges?
assets
• Maintaining and enhancing • Does the policy promote concepts
(three specific types of region are
current ecosystem services and such as self sufficiency and
identified which can face particular
recognising future needs eco‑efficiency in the management
development challenges: mountain
of natural resources?
regions; island regions; and the 18 • Recognising vulnerability to
sparsely populated regions, all rural environmental risks
and almost all border regions)
Concentration: overcoming Concentration: addressing • Does the policy seek to address
differences in density differences in density and other environmental problems
natural features associated with higher
• Avoiding excessive concentrations
concentrations of development,
of growth • Addressing environmental
such as pollution to air and
problems related to concentration
• Facilitating access to the water, water resource scarcity,
(e.g. pollution, water needs),
increasing returns of urban heat island effect, as
including negative effects within
agglomeration in all territories well as promote/recognise the
and among regions
environment efficiencies of high
• Recognising that whilst most concentration (e.g. provision of
• Recognising environmental/
economic activity is concentrated environmental infrastructure such
ecosystem services
in towns and cities, rural areas as water treatment, certain forms
remain an essential part of the EU of energy (CHP, etc.), public
and provide most of the natural transport, recycling)?
resources and natural areas
• Does the policy recognise and
• Ensuring sustainable territorial seek to promote or protect the
development — strengthening value of territories to social and
economic competitiveness economic well-being and success,
and capacity for growth, while including such factors as carbon
respecting the preservation of sinks, flood risk attenuation,
natural assets and ensuring social health and quality of life (exercise
cohesion and visual amenity)?

68 Territorial cohesion and water management in Europe: the spatial perspective

Appendix 1

Green Paper key elements of Potential key elements of the Potential criteria to evaluate
territorial cohesion environmental dimension of the environmental dimension of
territorial cohesion territorial cohesion
Connecting territories: overcoming Connecting territories: • Does the policy consider
distance or 'strengthening' strengthening positive natural the interdependences and
connections connections and interactions between relationships between territories?
territories
• Ensuring good intermodal • Does the policy seek to
transport connections • Understanding environmental understand and consider the
connections between and within inter-regional/trans-national
• Adequate access to services
regions, e.g. water, materials, connections in relation to
(e.g. health care, education and
energy, and making these environmental and natural
sustainable energy, broadband
connections more sustainable resources, for example provided
Internet access, reliable
by wildlife corridors, bird
connections to energy networks • Recognising inputs and
migration routes, river corridors?
and strong links between outputs (interdependences) of
business and research centres) environmental (and ecosystem) • Does the policy seek to minimise
services within and between the impact of constructing
regions at different scales new transport infrastructure
to overcome distance or
• Recognising/avoiding negative
strengthening connections
environmental effects from one
(e.g. pollution, habitat loss,
region to another (e.g. pollution,
landscape intrusion)?
climate change — flooding,
droughts, fires — biodiversity • Are inter-regional and
loss) trans‑national environmental
and natural resource connections
• Avoiding the environmental
reflected in policy and does policy
impacts of connectivity (e.g.
seek to ensure that outcomes are
pollution, habitat loss, landscape
sustainable and equitable?
intrusion)
• Does the policy recognise and
seek to avoid new and reduce
existing inter-regional and
trans‑national environmental
impacts arising from connectivity,
such as water pollution, losses to
habitats and species?
Cooperation: overcoming division Cooperation: overcoming division • Does the policy encourage
a cooperative approach to
• Addressing problems of • Cooperation on implementing EU
implementation and learning in
connectivity and concentration environmental laws and policy
relation to meeting environmental
through strong cooperation at at all levels (national, regional,
standards and addressing
different levels local); learning from different
transboundary environmental
regions; supporting regions to
• Ensuring policy responses on effects, between and within
meet common environmental
variable geographical scales regions and Member States?
standards — this section might
(e.g. neighbouring local
encompass the 'traditional' view • Does the policy promote
authorities in different countries
of environment in territorial the consideration of natural
and between neighbouring
cohesion and cohesion policy boundaries/areas (such as river
countries)
catchments/basins) as the most
• Recognising the importance
• Addressing environmental appropriate unit to manage
of natural as well as just
problems which do not respect certain environmental assets
administrative boundaries in
borders and require cooperation and issues which cut across
territorial governance
(e.g. problems associated with administrative boundaries?
climate change)
• Governance plays a major role in
ensuring territorial cohesion

Source: EEA, 2010.

Territorial cohesion and water management in Europe: the spatial perspective 69

Appendix 2

Appendix 2 Planning new development:

the IJmeeer Vision in the
Netherlands

The Markermeer (89) and the IJmeer (90) are two The Ijmeer and Markmeer
freshwater lakes that were created when the
Netherlands closed the Zuiderzee, an extensive
saltwater bay, from the North Sea. These two lakes
provide the Randstad (91) area, the country's core
urban areas whose population will soon reach more
than 1.5 million, with access to 80 000 hectares of
water and shores. The lakes provide conservation
functions, as the open waters are an important part
of the international routes of migratory birds, as well
as recreation.

For decades, the Netherlands planned to eventually

turn the Markermeer, which is located near
Amsterdam, into a polder area (i.e. reclaimed land)
to be called the Markerwaard. A turning point in
this way of thinking came when the country's 2006
Spatial Planning Policy Document stated that the
Markermeer should no longer be considered an area
for land reclamation (92).

Urban development places high demands on the Source: http://www.markermeer.nl.

surroundings of the two lakes. At the same time,
their open landscape is a key distinguishing feature
of the Randstad area in comparison to many other
European metropolitan areas. used for nature conservation?; how can a safe
water level be maintained; are there options to
The Future Vision for the Markermeer and IJmeer build a bridge or tunnel to provide better transport
proposes to use this landscape characteristic as an links with Amsterdam? (93). The two provinces
element in development that seeks to improve the cooperated with partners including the central
international competitiveness of the Randstad. government, the Royal Dutch Organisation
for Recreation (ANWB), Natuurmonumenten
The provinces of Flevoland and Noord-Holland (nature conservation), Staatsbosbeheer (States'
were requested to develop an Integrated nature resources management) and the water
Development Perspective project for the boards to prepare an Integrated Development
Markermeer-IJmeer, including a long-term Perspective for the Markermeer-IJmeer region. This
perspective on the lakes. Questions to be addressed was further developed in the Future Vision for
include how the area should be developed; should Markermeer‑IJmeer, which was presented to the
housing be allowed or should the area only be government in September 2009 (94).

(89) One of the reasons it remains a lake is the acknowledgement of its ecological value, mainly as part of the migration route for birds.
(90) The IJmeer is also an important habitat for birds.
(91) The Randstad area is a conurbation in the Netherlands, consisting of several cities, including the four largest cities of the
Netherlands (Amsterdam, Rotterdam, The Hague and Utrecht), and their surrounding areas.
(92) See http://www.markermeerijmeer.nl/homedownloads/Engels/default.aspx for more details.
(93) See http://www.noord-holland.nl/web/Actueel/Nieuws/Artikel/Flevoland-en-NoordHolland-maken-visie-op-IJmeer-en-Markermeer.
htm for more details.
(94) See http://www.markermeerijmeer.nl/hometext1/default.aspx for more details.

70 Territorial cohesion and water management in Europe: the spatial perspective

Appendix 2

In November 2009, the Cabinet endorsed the Future Not all stakeholders, however, agree with the
Vision for Markermeer-IJmeer and in particular the plan; it has met with considerable opposition from
realisation of the Future-proof Ecological System environmental groups and nearby municipalities
(TBES), discussed in the Future Vision. The TBES concerned about potential impacts on nature and
aims to improve the resilience of the ecosystem of biodiversity. In February 2010, the Markermeer-
the Markermeer and IJmeer, in order for the area to IJmeer area was designated as a Natura 2000 site by
better adapt to climate change. The development the Minister of Agriculture. One opposing position
perspective identified the following changes to be is that no urban expansion should take place in
necessary (95): or near this protected area. Moreover, the plans
are considered a threat to the open space and free
• areas with clear water along the North Sea Coast; horizon at the lakes, qualities that are scarce in
• a gradual transition from clear to waters with the Randstad area. A specific issue is that there is
sediment (a 'slibgradiënt'); still sufficient space within the dikes of Almere to
• transition zones between land and water, expand the city. Another topic of debate was the
supported by a seasonal water-level proposed link between Amsterdam and Almere
management; by either bridge or tunnel. Opponents argue that
• improvement of natural areas both inside and the construction of housing on the shoreline of the
outside the dikes, while providing connections IJmeer and a bridge over it would negatively affect
between them. the unique and open nature area.

In cooperation with the region, the national The Future Vision on IJmeer and Markermeer
authorities are currently studying ways in which the states that some of its measures contribute to the
plan's various components can be realised. WFD, including for fish stock management and the
development of fish passages. In addition, one of
Table A.2.1 below provides an analysis of the plan the objectives of the IJmeer plan is that it should
using territorial cohesion as a lens. It reviews both sufficiently protect against flooding, and thus
the economic and environmental dimensions of would contribute to implementation of the Floods
territorial cohesion and compares them in terms of Directive.
synergies and conflicts. It should be noted that this
is based on the information gathered for this case In contrast, the RBMP for the Netherlands Rhine
study, and mainly on the Vision itself. basin district does not appear to mention the Future
Vision, though it does refer to plans for biodiversity
The Vision foresees the following ecosystem benefits protection, including the Natura 2000 designation of
from the project (96): the two lakes.

• a flexible and coherent ecological system capable It should also be noted that provinces,
of absorbing changes (human as well as natural); municipalities and water boards in the Netherlands
• increase in biodiversity; have all prepared long-term river basin visions
• accessible and enjoyable; (stroomgebiedvisies) that look to 2050. These visions
• freshwater provisions for the existing supply identify room for water retention measures and
area; other practical measures, such as restoration of
• sufficient protection against flooding; streams (97). The regional visions are the foundations
• landscapes, cultural-historical elements and for the National Water Agreement (Nationale Water
ground and soil factors are of a high standard; Akkoord) (98). Moreover, they are relevant for the
• space for economic activities (fishing, shipping, provincial structural concepts, the provincial water
sand extraction); management plan and regional plan.
• space for urban and recreational development.

(95) Deltares (2009), Naar een Toekomstbestendig Ecologisch Systeem in het Markermeer en IJmeer, Kwantificering van het effect van
de voorgestelde maatregelen met HABITAT, p. 1.
(96) See http://www.markermeerijmeer.nl/homedownloads/Engels/Ecosystem/default.aspx for more details.
(97) See http://www.waterland.net/index.cfm/site/Nederland%20Waterland/pageid/EAC0DE42-FEA8-FE97-DCDE7080052912F8/index.
cfm for more details.
(98) To manage the effects of climate change on water in the Netherlands, central government, the Inter Provincial Consultation, the
water boards and the Association of Dutch Municipalities concluded an Agreement on Water Management for the 21st Century in
February 2001.

Territorial cohesion and water management in Europe: the spatial perspective 71

Appendix 2

Table A.2.1 Matrix for territorial cohesion analysis (99)

Economic dimension Environmental dimension Key synergies and

Key conflicts
elements
Harmonious/ • The Markermeer and IJmeer • To achieve the goals set in • As a result, the system
sustainable are being developed into a the Future vision, more work approach of the
development unique conservation area in in ecological terms is needed Integrated Development
the Randstad. The European to maintain the conservation Perspective leads to a
Commission referred to this levels set out in Natura 2000. robust ecosystem from
plan as an 'excellent and In addition to the Natura 2000 which nature, economy
innovative example that requirements, the Future and society benefit.
integrates the enhancement of Vision aims at developing
nature and the development an ecological system that
of recreation and urban areas is less vulnerable to natural
in a single project' (100). phenomena, such as climatic
change.
• The Markermeer and IJmeer
will be given Natura 2000
status. This will enhance the
area's quality of life as well
as the Randstad's position as
an internationally competitive
region.
Inherent • The implementation of • The Future Vision for • Inherent features of the
features of conservation measures Markermeer-IJmeer aims at ecosystem (such as bird
territories creates employment. It will gradually establishing the migration routes and
also provide a basis for further vitality and resilience of the water management)
urban development and area (and its ecosystem). cannot always be
tourism/recreational projects combined with
(such as the future-proof recreation and spatial
ecological system). development.
Concentration • To avoid a concentration of • According to the Integrated • The Randstad has a
growth in Amsterdam, the Development Perspective high concentration of
plan aims at a controlled project, current ecological housing, population
growth of Almere (to 400 000 decline can be reversed by and economic activities.
hectares). In addition, implementing a systematic By including the
infrastructure is improved approach. The objective of Markermeer-IJmeer
and areas for recreation are such an approach is to create area in the spatial
spread to avoid concentration an ecological system that planning, the risk exists
on certain parts of the is flexible enough to absorb that in doing so, this will
ecosystems. future changes without a gradually be absorbed
substantial loss of quality of in the 'concentrated
ecosystem (services). area'.
Connecting • The area is considered as • The IJmeer area has
territories one ecosystem in which a strategic position in
connections between the proposed 'wet axis
conservation areas are of the Netherlands', a
considered a priority. chain of wetlands that
aims to connect Zeeland
(south Netherlands)
with the Waddenzee in
the north.
Cooperation • The development of the • The development of the
Future Vision plan has Future Vision plan has taken
been developed through place through cooperation
cooperation at different levels, at different levels, tackling
tackling environmental issues environmental issues
occurring beyond the local occurring beyond the local
level, such as climate change. level, such as climate change.

(99) Mainly based on the 'Future Vision on the Markermeer and IJmeer'.
(100) Investing in Markermeer and Ijmeer. See http://www.markermeerijmeer.nl/homedownloads/default.aspx for more details.

72 Territorial cohesion and water management in Europe: the spatial perspective

Appendix 3

Appendix 3 Planning for future water

consumption needs: the
Dublin Water Supply Project

The Dublin metropolitan region has prepared a plan proposal. At the same time, the SEA process for
for a major new water supply system. One element the infrastructure considered issues related to the
of the proposal is the creation of new water bodies, WFD — and thus provides a mechanism to review
to be used for recreational parks. This is seen as compliance and also consider synergies.
a source of economic development. Another key
element is that water supply is seen as a resource for The proposal nonetheless has met opposition. One
continued urban expansion. key question that was raised by some observers
but not addressed in the planning process is
The proposal to build new water supply whether a key assumption — rising population in
infrastructure for the city of Dublin illustrates the Dublin metropolitan area — is desirable from
potential synergies as well as conflicts between a sustainability perspective. Indeed, the expected
spatial planning and river basin planning growth of Ireland's capital and main metropolitan
approaches. In terms of potential conflicts, the issue area appears to run counter to the goal of the
of timing is important; the proposal was presented Territorial Agenda, which promotes polycentric
in 2010, the year following the RBMPs — and growth.
these do not mention the upcoming infrastructure

Box A3.1 Greater Dublin water supply project

Summary

The population of the Greater Dublin region of the Republic of Ireland is forecast to grow over the medium
term and with it there is a projected increase in demand for water supply, growing from 550 million litres
per annum in 2010 to around 800 million litres by the period 2030–2040. A range of demand scenarios
were developed to understand the likely timing of supply requirements from a new source of water. This
involved the consideration of the planned growth objectives in the Dublin & Mid East Regions (Greater
Dublin Area) as envisaged in the (2010–2022) Regional Planning Guidelines as well as the Ireland National
Spatial Strategy, to forecast the scale of water supply which is likely to be required in order to sustain
the economic growth targets of the region. This analysis identified the need for a significant new source
of water supply by 2022. On this basis, the Greater Dublin Water Supply Project was prepared and its
implementation planned for 2010.

Alongside this process a wide range of technical options for the provision, supply, storage and treatment
of the water were considered through a SEA. This involved extensive public and expert consultation; the
process sought to reduce environmental impacts of the options as well as to identify a solution with a range
of economic and non-economic benefits for the region as a whole, i.e. beyond the immediate Greater Dublin
area.

The final project plan calls for the abstraction of water during high flow and flooding periods from Lough
Derg in the Shannon River Basin, its transfer via pumping stations into large-scale storage lakes in
Garryhinch Bog (Bord Na Mona) and the subsequent treatment and supply of water via pipeline to the
Greater Dublin, Mid East & Midland Regions. This is to be accompanied by increased water conservation
efforts within the Greater Dublin region to improve efficiency and reduce wastage.

Territorial cohesion and water management in Europe: the spatial perspective 73

Appendix 3

Box A3.1 Greater Dublin water supply project (cont.)

The planned work at Garryhinch Bog will serve two purposes: as a storage facility for the surface water
abstracted from Lough Derg and as a 500-acre–based park with facilities for water-based sports, walking,
cycling and fishing. The intention is to create a high quality recreational resource to provide job and
economic benefits to the Midland region (this approach is based on Anglian Water's Rutland Water and
Eco‑park (101)).

Role of spatial analysis

There are two major spatial issues related to the proposed scheme, the first of which is Greater Dublin's
growth over the medium term. In determining the projected water demand the relevant regional plans
were analysed to predict the likely increases in population growth and hence waster demand. The Dublin
City Development Plan 2011-2017 (102) forecasts that Dublin's population will continue to grow over the
medium term; there is no explicit consideration of efforts to focus population growth in other areas,
spatial or otherwise.

The second spatial consequence stems from the footprint and effects of the Greater Dublin Water Supply
Project; these are considered within the draft plan of the project (2008) and the accompanying SEA
(2008). The draft plan and SEA consider 10 different options for the provision of water for Dublin; these
included greater abstraction of groundwater, desalination of water from the Irish Sea, abstraction from a
variety of surface waters and a range of different pipeline and storage options. The figure below shows
the complete list of project options (option F is the final project).

Within the Greater Dublin Water Supply Draft Plan each of these 10 options was presented spatially
and evaluated to understand the direct economic costs of the measures, with a focus on the costs of
infrastructure development. The SEA also identified a range of environmental objectives based on the key
environmental issues in the likely affected area and used these objectives to appraise each of the project
options. The scale and impact of abstraction were considered for each option, including likely impacts on
downstream water quality and quantity. However, the presentation of the spatial consequences of the
various options could be considered to be limited beyond water abstraction.

Project options summary

Source: Water Supply Project – the options (103)

(101) Anglian Water's Rutland Water and Eco-park. See http://www.rutlandwater.org.uk/index.html for more details.
(102) Dublin City Development Plan 2011-2017. See http://www.dublincitydevelopmentplan.ie/ for more details.
(103) Water Supply Project – the options. See http://www.watersupplyproject-dublinregion.ie/index.php?page=the-options for more
details.

74 Territorial cohesion and water management in Europe: the spatial perspective

Appendix 3

Box A3.1 Greater Dublin water supply project (cont.)

Link to implementation of the Water Framework Directive

Four relevant documents were analysed for interactions with the WFD: the draft plan of the project (2008),
SEA of the Greater Dublin Water Supply Draft Plan (2006 and 2008 versions), the Shannon (104) and
Eastern RBMPs (105) (RBMPs) and Dublin's City Development Plan 2011-2017.

The timing of the project is such that it was not considered during the first iteration of Ireland's RBMPs;
therefore there is no reference to the project or to any likely related predicted impacts in the Shannon
(2010) and Eastern (2009) RBMPs, the project is also not considered in the relevant Water Management
Unit Action Plans. For instance, Lough Derg, which is the source of the water in the plan, the Water
Management Unit Action plan includes no reference to the project at all, despite there being a specific
Future Pressures and Development section in the action plan and the project having being under
consideration during the production of the plan (106).

The Dublin City Development Plan refers to a need for increased capacity in water supply infrastructure
after 2016 but sets no clear view as to how this is likely to be obtained. In regards to the WFD, the
Development Plan sets the achievement of good ecological status under the WFD as a policy of Dublin City
Council. In addition the Development Plan sets two objectives in relation to the WFD: 1) the implementation
of the Eastern RBMP (of which Dublin is a part) and any associated programme of measures, and 2) the
need to consider the findings of the Eastern RBMP within any new development proposals.

The 2008 SEA of the Greater Dublin Water Supply Draft Plan suggests that the Draft Plan will consider
the limits set on abstraction as per the RBMPs but takes the view (based on modelling work) that this
abstraction will not impact upon the WFD objectives of the Shannon International River Basin (IRB) as the
abstraction will only occur when the water level is at a high level.

Within the SEA appraisal one of the 14 objectives is to 'Ensure that there is no adverse impact on achieving
the objectives of the Water Framework Directive' (p. 15) (107). To support this, two targets are set 'avoiding
deterioration in existing status of water bodies concerned' and 'avoid conflicts with the WFD objective for
water bodies to achieve 'good status' by 2015'. This objective is used to appraise the 10 options for the
projects and includes an analysis of hydrological changes resulting from each of the options and the likely
effect of this on the relevant water bodies' 'risk' of not achieving good status as indicated by the relevant
RBMP characterisation reports. The impact of the various options on this objective is generally considered to
be not significant.

Within the 2008 Draft Plan for the Greater Dublin Water Supply Project there is no reference to the WFD
though the draft report does consider the findings of the SEA.

The incorporation of WFD objectives in the development plan and SEA was identified as an opportunity for
integration in work undertaken on behalf of Ireland's Environmental Protection Agency (108). However, a
number of other opportunities highlighted in this report, namely the integration of RBMP processes with
SEA and relevant development plans in general and in relation to consultation specifically, have not been
implemented to date and may therefore represent a missed opportunity.

This could be considered to indicate one-way integration between the SEA of the Draft Greater Dublin Water
Supply Projectand the RBMPs, with the SEAs taking account of the available aspects of the relevant RBMPs
whilst the RBMPs fail explicitly to consider the impact of the Greater Dublin Water Supply Project or its SEA.
This may have been partly a consequence of the late timing of the SEAs of the RBMPs.

(104) Shannon IRB RBMP. See http://www.shannonrbd.com/index.htm for more details.

(105) Eastern RBMP. See http://www.erbd.ie/index.html for more details.
(106) Lough Derg WMU Action Plan. See http://www.wfdireland.ie for more details.
(107) SEA Environmental report. See http://www.watersupplyproject-dublinregion.ie/uploads/files/Updated%20Publications/
Environmental%20Report%20%28cd%20version%29.pdf for more details.
(108) Sheate, W.R and Bennett, S., 2007, The Water Framework Directive, Assessment, Participation and Protected Areas: What are the
Relationships? (WAPPA), ERTDI Report No. 67. See http://www.epa.ie/downloads/pubs/research/water/name,23575,en.html for
more details.

Territorial cohesion and water management in Europe: the spatial perspective 75

Appendix 3

Box A3.1 Greater Dublin water supply project (cont.)

Concerns and criticism

Despite general support for the project, based primarily on the economic benefits, a number of concerns
have been voiced by various stakeholders, predominantly relating to the likely impacts of the project on the
Shannon IRB (109):

• There are concerns that despite not being directly located within the Shannon river basin, the project will
give Dublin Council a role in the management of the Shannon and thus detract from local legitimacy and
ownership.
• The Shannon Protection Alliance may seek to make a complaint to the European Commission through
the requirements of the WFD and the Habitats or Birds Directives to stop what they view as perceived
'adverse effects' stemming from the project.
• Through the SEA of the Draft Plan a number of bodies voiced concerns that the quantity of water may
lead to increased concentrations of pollutants and siltation in the Shannon River and thus negatively
impact upon the recreational use of the water course, specifically upon angling and navigational use for
small boats. These were considered within the assessment.
• There have been some concerns related to promoting continued expansion of the Greater Dublin region
and the potential negative effects this may have in terms of sustainability (110).

Link to the key elements of territorial cohesion, focusing on the environment dimension

Harmonious and sustainable development

The project seeks the opportunity to enhance an area (Garryhinch) by highlighting the multifunctionality
of an environmental resource (in this case the creation of the Midland's Water Eco-Park). This presents
the opportunity to utilise a high quality environment as a good or service and in doing so deliver a range
of social, economic and environmental benefits to contribute to sustainable development in the region. In
addition, the project seeks to maintain the economic welfare of the Greater Dublin Region and therefore
has a strong link to this element of territorial cohesion. The project does not, however, question the
sustainability of continued population growth in the Dublin area

Inherent features of territories

The SEA of the project considers there to be minimal impact upon the WFD objectives as a result of
the proposed abstraction from Lough Derg, this includes the consideration of the current diffuse and
point sources of pollution on the quality of these waters. In addition it seeks to restore and enhance the
Garryhinch cutaway bog area. The aim is therefore to make best use of territorial assets whilst minimising
harm to the natural environment in general and watercourse in particular. At the same time, major
criticisms have been raised concerning the impact of the project.

Concentration (overcoming differences in density)

The project does not seek to overcome differences in density; in fact it seeks to enable the continued
population growth of the most densely populated area of the territory. As such it does not have a positive
link to this element of territorial cohesion.

Connecting territories

The project seeks to better connect regions within the territory, however this is a largely one way dynamic
with the Greater Dublin Region abstracting resources (water) from Lough Derg. There is therefore minimal
link to this element of territorial cohesion.

(109) Irish Times (2010) Would Dublin drink the Shannon dry? See http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/
weekend/2010/0724/1224275368134.html for more details.
(110) William, B. and Shiel, P (2002) The expansion of Dublin and policy implications of dispersal. Journal of Irish urban studies, 1(1),
1–21.

76 Territorial cohesion and water management in Europe: the spatial perspective

Appendix 3

Box A3.1 Greater Dublin water supply project (cont.)

Cooperation

There is a reasonable degree of cooperation of implementing the EU's environmental laws. In particular
it is clear that the SEA has had some influence upon the formulation of the project's draft plan and has
considered, where the findings were available, the WFD. That the Midland's Water Eco-Park is based in
the Anglian Water's Rutland Water and Eco-park demonstrates some learning from different regions and
therefore some linkage to this element of territorial cohesion.

Further information

• SEA Environmental report. See http://www.watersupplyproject-dublinregion.ie/uploads/files/

Updated%20Publications/Environmental%20Report%20%28cd%20version%29.pdf for more
information.
• Water Supply Project – the options. See http://www.watersupplyproject-dublinregion.ie/index.
php?page=the-options for more information.
• Shannon IRB RBMP. See http://www.shannonrbd.com/index.htm for more information.
• Eastern RBMP. See http://www.erbd.ie/index.html for more information.
• Lough Derg WMU Action Plan. See http://www.wfdireland.ie/docs/1_River%20Basin%20
Management%20Plans%202009%20-%202015/ShIRBD%20RBMP%202010/Water%20
Management%20Unit%20Action%20Plans/Lough%20Derg%20WMU.pdf for more information.

Territorial cohesion and water management in Europe: the spatial perspective 77

Appendix 4

Appendix 4 Abbreviations

BSAP Baltic Sea Action Plan JRC Joint Research Centre

BSR Baltic Sea Region MSFD Marine Strategy Framework

Directive
BSRG Baltic Sea Regional Strategy
NUTS Nomenclature of territorial units for
CCM Catchment Characterisation statistics
Modelling
OECD Organisation for Economic
CF Cohesion Fund Co‑operation and Development
CIS Common Implementation Strategy PE Population equivalent or unit per
capita loading
CSG Community Strategy Guidelines
PEBLDS Pan-European Biological and
DC Danube Commission
Landscape Diversity Strategy
EC European Commission
PEEN Pan-European Ecological Network
ECRINS European Catchments and River
RBD River basin district
Network System
RBMP River basin management plan
EEA European Environment Agency
RBD River basin district
EIA Environmental impact assessment
REC Regional environmental
Eionet European Environment Information
characterisation
and Observation Network
SEA Strategic environmental assessment
ERDF European Regional Development
Fund SRBC International Sava River Basin
Commission
ESDP European Spatial Development
Perspective TEN-T Trans-European Networks –
Transport
ESF European Social Fund
WIA Water impact assessment
ESPON European Spatial Planning
Observation Network WFD Water Framework Directive
ETC-LUSI European Topic Centre on Land Use UWWT Urban wastewater treatment
and Spatial Information

EU European Union

EUROSTAT Eurostat is the statistical office of the

European Union

Helcom Helsinki Commission for the Baltic

Sea Convention

ICPDR International Commission for the

Protection of the Danube River

78 Territorial cohesion and water management in Europe: the spatial perspective

European Environment Agency

Territorial cohesion and water management in Europe:

the spatial perspective

2012 — 78 pp. — 21 x 29.7 cm

ISBN 978-92-9213-317-7
doi:10.2800/49764
doi:10.2800/49764
TH-AK-12-004-EN-N

European Environment Agency

Kongens Nytorv 6
1050 Copenhagen K
Denmark

Tel.: +45 33 36 71 00
Fax: +45 33 36 71 99

Web: eea.europa.eu
Enquiries: eea.europa.eu/enquiries