The Implementation Logic of the EU Water Framework Directive and the Role of Independent Decision-Making in Polycentric Governance Systems

20 years after putting the EU Water Framework Directive (WFD) into force their ambitious aims, the good (ecological and chemical) status in all European Waters, are far from being achieved by the member states. For Germany it also holds that far fewer measures are constructed or even planned yet than necessary to reach those aims. This paper argues that two logics are actually clashing in the WFD implementation process: a command-and-control-approach and self-organization based on independent decision-making in polycentric governance systems. This causes deficits in measure implementation. This insight was gained from and is based on the analysis of the actor setting, local implementation barriers, drivers for integration, cooperation and participation, and the characteristics of bright spots of local level WFD measure implementation in six German federal states. This paper uses the various results to illustrate this overall insight. The WFD is called a directive of a new generation. It is called to go beyond command-and-control mechanisms and therefore helps solving issues of misfit with local institutions of the member states. It sets goals but allows considerable leeway on how to achieve the policy goals. It shows that the two logics are inherent to the elements of the WFD policy cycle (transposition into national law, baseline assessment, river basin management planning and programs of measures, monitoring and evaluation) and process requirements (river basin management approach, coordination and participation). It is argued here that down to a certain level the directive still sticks to command-and-control mechanisms. This is contrasted by decisions on implementation by the member states independently or based on WFD prescriptions leading to bottom-up processes and self-organization. These decisions are based on (partially) different premises than the top-down processes. Overall, this leads to logical misfits during policy implementation and through this to failures. Regarding successful policy implementation this leads to a necessity for changes at different levels: 1) changes of the ‘bigger picture’ and political decisions on prioritization lined with necessary instruments and resources, 2) medium-level changes to address some leverage points, and 3) local level changes through the adjustment of strategies of individual decision-makers e.g. by diffusion of best-practices related to governance. Based on the provided insight, it is expected here that the letter two alone may improve policy implementation but will never lead to full achievement of WFD goals due to the nature of polycentric governance systems. Overall, by contrasting steering problems with WFD implementation, this paper intends to contribute to overall steering questions in environmental policy formulation and implementation. The paper draws on the overall implementation situation and processes regarding specific measures on hydromorphology and connectivity in the German federal states Hesse, Northrhine-Westfalia, Saxony, Saxony-Anhalt and Thuringia. For each state official websites and policy documents were analyzed. The majority of data are drawn from semi-structured interviews with WFD addressees as well as lower, middle and upper authorities and non-state actors. The 69 conducted interviews lasted two hours on average. Participatory observation in processes and a survey among implementers across Germany complemented the interviews.