Striving to Integrate Delivery of Water Policies: Insight into the Challenges of Governing Differently

In response to policy interest, over 4 years we have explored challenges, opportunities and expectations of integrating delivery of Europe’s Water Framework Directive (WFD) and Floods Directive (FD). These policies together entail manging water quality and quantity to achieve good ecological status whilst also improving flood risk management. Our data encompass a mix of document analysis and semi-structured interviews. From 6 cases across Europe we studied River Basin Management Plans and Flood Risk Management Plans - the high-level steering instruments under the WFD and FD - and we interviewed individuals who developed them. We also studied the plans and interviewed of partners associated with 4 UK catchment partnerships – these are non-statutory but sometimes envisaged as a means of policy delivery. Our thematic analysis of these data was informed by literatures on multi-level governance and policy coherence, and as well as on partnership working and the role of different sectors. Our findings suggest that there are technical opportunities to integrate planning and reporting processes, as well options to deliver multiple benefits through site-specific measures. However, the majority of our data was actually dominated by discussion of the intra- and inter-organisational relationships and informal institutional practices required to enable such policy integration to function in practice. These practices are often not very visible, nor recognised by formal metrics or appraisal of individuals and institutions: indeed, the pressure to achieve statutory duties and make efficient use of resources can act against this, especially if reinforced by differing work cultures. Many in agencies and departments implementing these policies hope that integration may be better handled at the lower-level of catchment partnerships, especially since these can enrol the expertise and resources of non-state sectors. However, partnerships cannot sidestep these challenges, not only because they are partially comprised of the same agencies. Partnerships do involve other actors: typically local authorities, third-sector actors focused on fish and water ecology; and sometimes private sector actors such as water utilities. This mix potentially bolsters enthusiasm, knowledge and capacity to carry out work ‘on the ground’. However, all these partners have their own goals and constraints, and are accountable to government, regulators, shareholders, and/or members. The challenge of facilitating new, different or additional work by partnerships – which is surely entailed by the challenge of integration – therefore remains, compounded by the difficulty in securing core costs for partnership coordinators. The environmental governance literature often suggests that more networked forms of governance, and better connections across levels – both of which partnerships can be seen to reflect – can assist in coordinating and delivering multiple interests. However, we question how and when this can occur, in a context of binding policy goals combined with institutions and accountabilities that reflect managerialism and more hierarchical styles of governance. European policy implementation experiences thus can help to enrich understandings of environmental governance, whilst more attention to the emotional labour and daily practices of actors across levels – that comprise the experience of governing - will enrich understanding of European water governance.