4.7 Article

Is the EU WFD suitable to support IWRM planning in non-European countries? Lessons learnt from the introduction of IWRM and River Basin Management in Mongolia

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & POLICY
卷 75, 期 -, 页码 28-37

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.envsci.2017.05.009

关键词

European Water Framework Directive (EU WFD); IWRM; Dublin Principles; River Basin Management; Transition countries; Transferability of European law to other; contexts

资金

  1. German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) of the FONA [033L003, 033W016]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The Water Framework Directive (EU WFD, 2000/60EC, European Commission, 2000) is a comprehensive tool for water management taking Europe's diverse national and local policy contexts into account. This has positioned the EU WFD as a potential tool to enhance the implementation of the globally-promoted integrated water resources management concept (IWRM) in developing and transition countries that to date lack comparable regulations. Using the case of Mongolia, a country that has shown interest in using aspects of the EU WFD for implementing its IWRM concept, we will discuss the extent to which the EU WFD also provides a framework for IWRM outside Europe. We find that the EU WFD may provide guidance for the implementation of ecosystem-based River Basin Management (RBM) within an existing national IWRM concept, in terms of public participation and in terms of economic analysis. However, the application of concepts EU WFD is easier if strong political will, good monitoring capacities and a legislative backbone covering key IWRM principles and the capacity for enforcement are in place. Also, the EU-WFD does not provide guidance in terms of water-related issues that are e.g. addressing gender, poverty and capacity development. Thus, the EU WFD cannot serve as a blueprint, as it requires adaptation to the different socio-economic, cultural and political contexts of the implementing country and it does not inform all aspects of IWRM.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据