The Danish implementation of the Water Framework Directive: analysis of events and storylines with a focus on river basin managements plans
Author
Jensen, Jørgen Hugo
Term
4. Term
Publication year
2014
Submitted on
2014-06-02
Pages
90
Abstract
Den danske gennemførelse af EU’s vandrammedirektiv er blevet anfægtet ved flere domstole, og fristen for at udarbejde vandområdeplaner er for længst overskredet. De underliggende basisanalyser er blevet kraftigt kritiseret. Afhandlingen bruger en kombination af fronetisk forskning (en praksis- og magtorienteret tilgang til konkrete forløb) og diskursanalyse (analyse af, hvordan forskellige grupper taler om og forstår emnet) for at identificere aktuelle konfliktpunkter og afdække, hvad der skiller interessenterne. Formålet er at kunne handle på disse konfliktpunkter og dermed bidrage til en bedre planlægningsproces. Processen præges af seks diskurskoalitioner, der især bæres af: 1) Sustainable Agriculture, 2) Danish Agriculture & Food Council, 3) statslige myndigheder, 4) akademia, 5) Greenpeace og 6) Europa-Kommissionen sammen med Danmarks Naturfredningsforening. Sustainable Agriculture er ikke ligeligt inddraget i processen og er den mest markante udfordrer af myndighederne. Statslige myndigheder har talt for brede, generelle indsatser, mens deres rådgivere i akademia har anbefalet målrettede, differentierede indsatser. Det er fortsat uklart, hvad der præcist skal til for at nå målet om god økologisk tilstand, og mange vandområder er endnu ikke udpeget til indsatser. Alternative tilgange uden inddragelse kunne have vendt opfattelsen af, hvem der vinder og taber, på hovedet, og der er ikke fremlagt konkrete alternativer i stedet for at reducere indsatserne.
Denmark’s implementation of the EU Water Framework Directive has been challenged in several courts, and the deadline for producing River Basin Management Plans is long overdue. The underlying baseline analyses have faced strong criticism. This thesis combines phronetic research (a practice- and power-oriented analysis of real events) with discourse analysis (examining how different groups talk about and understand the issue) to identify current flashpoints and clarify what divides stakeholders, with the aim of improving the planning process. The process is shaped by six discourse coalitions led mainly by: 1) Sustainable Agriculture, 2) the Danish Agriculture & Food Council, 3) state agencies, 4) academia, 5) Greenpeace, and 6) the European Commission together with the Danish Society for Nature Conservation. Sustainable Agriculture is not equally included in the process and is the most forceful challenger of the authorities. State agencies have argued for broad, generalized measures, while their academic advisers have argued for targeted, differentiated measures. It remains unclear what exactly is required to achieve good ecological status, and many water bodies still have no designated measures. Alternative approaches that exclude certain actors might simply have inverted perceptions of winners and losers, and no concrete options have been offered in place of reducing measures.
[This abstract was generated with the help of AI]
Keywords
Documents