Challenges of linking scientific knowledge to river basin management policy: AquaTerra as a case study

The EU Project AquaTerra generates knowledge about the river-soil-sediment-groundwater system and delivers scientific information of value for river basin management. In this article, the use and ignorance of scientific knowledge in decision making is explored by a theoretical review. We elaborate on the 'two-communities theory', which explains the problems of the policy-science interface by relating and comparing the different cultures, contexts, and languages of researchers and policy makers. Within AquaTerra, the EUPOL subproject examines the policy-science interface with the aim of achieving a good connection between the scientific output of the project and EU policies. We have found two major barriers, namely language and resources, as well as two types of relevant relationships: those between different research communities and those between researchers and policy makers. (c) 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Sharing responsibility for river basin management

Includes bibliography

The State and strategies for river basin management in the Andean region

Includes bibliography

Status and Causal Pathway Assessments Supporting River Basin Management

The European Water Framework Directive (WFD) requires a status assessment of all water bodies. If that status is deteriorated, the WFD urges the identification of its potential causes in order to be able to suggest appropriate management measures. The instrument of investigative monitoring allows for such identification, provided that appropriate tools are available to link the observed effects to causative stressors, while unravelling confounding factors. In this chapter, the state of the art of status and causal pathway assessment is described for the major stressors responsible for the deterioration of European water bodies, i.e. toxicity, acidification, salinisation, eutrophication and oxygen depletion, parasites and pathogens, invasive alien species, hydromorphological degradation, changing water levels as well as sediments and suspended matter. For each stressor, an extensive description of the potential effects on the ecological status is given. Secondly, stressor-specific abiotic and biotic indicators are described that allow for a first indication of probable causes, based on the assessment of available monitoring data. Subsequently, more advanced tools for site-specific confirmation of stressors at hand are discussed. Finally, the local status assessments are put into the perspective of the risk for downstream stretches in order to be able to prioritise stressors and to be able to select appropriate measures for mitigation of the risks resulting from these stressors.

Monitoring Programmes, Multiple Stress Analysis and Decision Support for River Basin Management

The identification of plausible causes for water body status deterioration will be much easier if it can build on available, reliable, extensive and comprehensive biogeochemical monitoring data (preferably aggregated in a database). A plausible identification of such causes is a prerequisite for well-informed decisions on which mitigation or remediation measures to take. In this chapter, first a rationale for an extended monitoring programme is provided; it is then compared to the one required by the Water Framework Directive (WFD). This proposal includes a list of relevant parameters that are needed for an integrated, a priori status assessment. Secondly, a few sophisticated statistical tools are described that subsequently allow for the estiation of the magnitude of impairment as well as the likely relative importance of different stressors in a multiple stressed environment. The advantages and restrictions of these rather complicated analytical methods are discussed. Finally, the use of Decision Support Systems (DSS) is advocated with regard to the specific WFD implementation requirements.

Integration of research advances in modelling and monitoring in support of WFD river basin management planning in the context of climate change

The integration of scientific knowledge about possible climate change impacts on water resources has a direct implication on the way water policies are being implemented and evolving. This is particularly true regarding various technical steps embedded into the EU Water Framework Directive river basin management planning, such as risk characterisation, monitoring, design and implementation of action programmes and evaluation of the "good status" objective achievements (in 2015). The need to incorporate climate change considerations into the implementation of EU water policy is currently discussed with a wide range of experts and stakeholders at EU level. Research trends are also on-going, striving to support policy developments and examining how scientific findings and recommendations could be best taken on board by policy-makers and water managers within the forthcoming years. This paper provides a snapshot of policy discussions about climate change in the context of the WFD river basin management planning and specific advancements of related EU-funded research projects. Perspectives for strengthening links among the scientific and policy-making communities in this area are also highlighted.

Lake Tahoe Basin, Heavenly Ski Resort master plan, regional plan for the Lake Tahoe Basin management unit, Douglas County [NV], El Dorado County [CA], Alpine County [CA] : environmental impact statement.

Mode of access: Internet.

The evolution and performance of river basin management in the Murray-Darling Basin

We explore bioregional management in the Murray-Darling Basin (MDB) in Australia through the institutional design characteristics of the MDB River Basin Organization (RBO), the actors and organizations who supported and resisted the establishment of the RBO, and the effectiveness of the RBO. During the last 25 years, there has been a major structural reform in the MDB RBO, which has changed from an interstate coordinating body to an Australian government agency. Responsibility for basin management has been centralized under the leadership of the Australian government, and a comprehensive integrated Basin plan has been adopted. The driving forces for this centralization include national policy to restore river basins to sustainable levels of extraction, state government difficulties in reversing overallocation of water entitlements, the millennium drought and its effects, political expediency on the part of the Australian government and state governments, and a major injection of Australian government funding. The increasing hierarchy and centralization of the MDB RBO does not follow a general trend toward multilevel participative governance of RBOs, but decentralization should not be overstated because of the special circumstances at the time of the centralization and the continuing existence of some decentralized elements, such as catchment water plans, land use planning, and water quality. Further swings in the centralization–decentralization pendulum could occur. The MDB reform has succeeded in rebalancing Basin water allocations, including an allocation for the environment and reduced diversion limits. There are some longer term risks to the implementation of reform, including lack of cooperation by state governments, vertical coordination difficulties, and perceived reductions in the accountability and legitimacy of reform at the local level. If implementation of the Basin plan is diverted or delayed, a new institution, the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder, can play a major role in securing and coordinating environmental water supplies.

Water management at the river basin level: challenges in Latin America

Includes bibliography

Watershed monitoring and the TMDL modeling to assess bacterial loading in estuarine environments to improve management

Shellfish bed closures along the North Carolina coast have increased over the years seemingly concurrent with increases in population (Mallin 2000). More and faster flowing storm water has come to mean more bacteria, and fecal indicator bacterial (FIB) standards for shellfish harvesting are often exceeded when no source of contamination is readily apparent (Kator and Rhodes, 1994). Could management reduce bacterial loads if the source of the bacteria where known? Several potentially useful methods for differentiating human versus animal pollution sources have emerged including Ribotyping and Multiple Antibiotic Resistance (MAR) (US EPA, 2005). Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) studies on bacterial sources have been conducted for streams in NC mountain and Piedmont areas (U.S. EPA, 1991 and 2005) and are likely to be mandated for coastal waters. TMDL analysis estimates allowable pollutant loads and allocates them to known sources so management actions may be taken to restore water to its intended uses (U.S. EPA, 1991 and 2005). This project sought first to quantify and compare fecal contamination levels for three different types of land use on the coast, and second, to apply MAR and ribotyping techniques and assess their effectiveness for indentifying bacterial sources. Third, results from these studies would be applied to one watershed to develop a case study coastal TMDL. All three watershed study areas are within Carteret County, North Carolina. Jumping Run Creek and Pettiford Creek are within the White Oak River Basin management unit whereas the South River falls within the Neuse River Basin. Jumping Run Creek watershed encompasses approximately 320 ha. Its watershed was a dense, coastal pocosin on sandy, relic dune ridges, but current land uses are primarily medium density residential. Pettiford Creek is in the Croatan National Forest, is 1133 ha. and is basically undeveloped. The third study area is on Open Grounds Farm in the South River watershed. Half of the 630 ha. watershed is under cultivation with most under active water control (flashboard risers). The remaining portion is forested silviculture.(PDF contains 4 pages)