Journal of Environmental Management 332 (2023) 117329

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Environmental Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jenvman

Research article

Addressing diffuse water pollution from agriculture: Do governance

structures matter for the nature of measures taken?
Mark Wiering a, *, Sabrina Kirschke b, Nasir Uddin Akif b, c
a
Radboud University Nijmegen, Institute for Management Research, Environmental Governance and Politics, P.O. Box 9108, NL - 6500, HK, Nijmegen, Netherlands
b
United Nations University-FLORES, Ammonstr. 74, 01067, Dresden, Germany
c
University of Freiburg, Faculty of Environment and Natural Resources, Tennenbacher Str. 4, 79106, Freiburg im Breisgau, Germany

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Handling Editor: Jason Michael Evans Nutrient pollution of freshwaters from agriculture is a key barrier to achieving the water quality goals of the
European Water Framework Directive (WFD). Governance research suggests that governance structures can
Keywords: support the planning of water quality measures. However, it is widely unclear how specific governance structures
Diffuse pollution affect the actual nature of practical measures taken for addressing the “wicked problem” of diffuse nutrient
Agriculture
pollution. This study analyses how the extent of consensual policy styles, organizational and program integra­
Water Framework Directive
tion, participatory governance, and the capacities of public authorities are related to the substance of practical
Governance
Policy instruments measures taken (effect-vs. source-based measures) and the choice of policy instruments (e.g., sermons, carrots,
Wicked problem sticks). Based on a comparative case study design including six country cases, document analyses, and expert
interviews, we find no clear-cut relationships between the country’s governance structures and the types of
measures chosen or any trend of a combined effect. This suggests that, in the case of the WFD, governance
structures are less important than expected or that different governance structures compensate for the effects on
the level of practical measures taken and policy instruments chosen. These results question the dominant
assumption that these governance structures matter (a lot) in wicked problem solving and may hint to additional
context factors these governance structures are embedded in.

1. Introduction rely on creating a self-disciplining framework, where integration of

policies for improving water quality is strongly encouraged (Persson
The Water Framework Directive (WFD, 2000/60/EC) is one of the et al., 2018; Waylen et al., 2015; Wiering et al., 2020b).
most ambitious and perhaps most optimistic environmental directives of Identifying ways to achieve the ambitious goals of the Water
the EU, both in terms of substantial aims and its governance approach. Framework Directive is, therefore, an ongoing task for academic
The general aim is to have clean and healthy water for humans and scholars and practitioners alike. Over the last 20 years, since the start of
aquatic ecosystems all over Europe, preferably in 2027. The WFD’s the WFD, it appeared to be very difficult to find satisfactory answers to
governance is largely based on principles, procedures, and processes, the problem of diffuse pollution from agricultural resources, specifically
with very few (direct) ‘hard’ measures or strict standards for core nutrients pollution (Zingraff-Hamed et al., 2020). Environmental policy
environmental pressures of water quality and ecology (Persson et al., and governance research has here increasingly hinted to the wickedness
2018; Waylen et al., 2015; Wiering et al., 2020b; European Commission, of the problem of diffuse pollution from agriculture, including key
2019, p. 230, 232). There are exceptions to this, e.g., concerning specific characteristics of goal diversity, system complexity, and uncertainty.
elements that are urgent in light of the chemical status, as the list of Authors argue here that the problem of diffuse pollution is wicked just
EU-wide priority substances with significant risks for the environment. because problem solvers such as water managers, public authorities, and
Another example exception is when the WFD refers to other Directives, political decision-makers face such goal diversity, complexity, and un­
like the Nitrates Directive for nitrates pollution of groundwater and certainty when dealing with diffuse pollution (see for the wickedness of
surface waters stemming from agricultural resources. At the same time, the problem along three dimensions e.g., Duckett et al., 2016; Kirschke
the ambitious policies for the ecological status of water bodies mainly et al., 2019; Wiering et al., 2020a; Wiering et al., 2020b; Sharma, 2021).

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (M. Wiering), [email protected] (S. Kirschke), [email protected] (N.U. Akif).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2023.117329
Received 9 June 2022; Received in revised form 22 December 2022; Accepted 16 January 2023
Available online 2 February 2023
0301-4797/© 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
M. Wiering et al. Journal of Environmental Management 332 (2023) 117329

Relating to the dimension of goal diversity of wicked problems (e.g., widely lacking.
Head, 2008), the question is which potentially conflicting goals exists This study analyses to which extent different governance structures
and if these can be resolved through prioritization. This prioritization affect the nature of measures taken to address the wicked problem of
has much to do with the principle of ‘preventive action’ in the European diffuse nutrient pollution of freshwaters from agriculture. While
Union (article 191(2) TFEU), where it is stated that environmental acknowledging that there could be many factors influencing the nature
damage should as a priority be rectified at source. Following this general of measures, we have cut out important influencing governance factors
EU principle, EU policies should prefer a source-based approach over an that also frequently figure in the policy literature: policy - or regulatory
effect-based approach and the sources of pollution should also bear the styles, horizontal coordination, participatory governance, and the ca­
costs of the environmental consequences (the argument underpinning pacities of public authorities. We examined how these governance
the polluter pays-principle) (Correljé et al., 2007; Schrama, 2012). This structures affect both the nature of interventions (effect- vs. source-
emphasis means that one would expect a preference for source-based based measures) and the type of policy instruments (sermons, carrots,
solutions to the wicked problem of agricultural diffuse pollution. How­ sticks) of the practical measures taken. The study thus clearly goes
ever, more preventative, source-based measures dealing with nutrients beyond the analyses of the effects of individual governance structures. It
would affect agricultural practices greatly and would have economic further adds to highly relevant EU reports in the field, which however (i)
consequences that have to be legitimated by the importance of ecolog­ do not systematically consider the wickedness of the problem at hand,
ical conditions of water bodies, which are sometimes invisible for the (ii) provide comprehensive conceptual governance frameworks rather
farmer and the general public (Wiering et al., 2020b). than comparative empirical evidence related to such frameworks, or (iii)
The dimension of complexity of wicked problems is closely related allocate comprehensive, though less governance-related data on the
and hints at the different policy domains, their dynamics, and in­ actual implementation of measures. It further adds to policy analyses,
terconnections diffuse pollution is associated with (e.g., Kirschke et al., which may neglect underlying governance structures for policy design
2017). Based on this complexity, scholars call for an integrated, holistic and implementation.
approach, e.g. considering agricultural policies under the WFD, striving Section 2 introduces our understanding of the different concepts as
for river basin management (water and land use), or a ‘nexus’-approach well as key assumptions on their relationships. Section 3 introduces our
to the management of environmental resources (Pahl-Wostl et al., 2012; comparative case study design including six European cases, as well as
Roidt and Avellán, 2019). On a very practical and legal level, complexity documentary analyses, literature analyses, and accompanying expert
refers to connections between the important Nitrates Directive and the interviews for data collection. Section 4 describes how, in the six cases,
WFD. This complexity leads to a policy integration problem: the regu­ governance structures influence (or not) the nature of practical mea­
lation of ground- and surface water quality for agriculture, with special sures taken for addressing the wicked problem of diffuse nutrient
importance of the Nitrates Directive, is not prepared or well-suited for pollution of freshwaters by agriculture. Section 5 discusses the results
the ecological ambitions of the Water Framework Directive, which and concludes on further research needs regarding the comparative role
would need much stricter thresholds and standards for nutrients of governance structures in policy design as one potential entry point for
(Wiering et al., 2020b). identifying effective intervention points from an environmental man­
Finally, there is the dimension of uncertainty, which relates to the agement perspective.
knowledge base surrounding the nature of and solutions for the prob­
lem: European policies should be based on scientific knowledge and 2. Concepts and hypotheses
data, and preferably reasoning from a precautionary principle too.
However, it is sometimes not that clear where nutrients pollution exactly 2.1. General conceptual framework
stems from (e.g., agriculture, industries, households, historical pollu­
tion, or cross-border pollution) and sometimes, it is also not very clear Although the framework conditions with regards to the problem
which dedicated measures are (most) effective (Kirschke et al., 2019). pressure and problem solving under the European Water Framework
Although there is some certainty about the effect of long term lowering Directive and the Nitrates Directive are quite similar in many European
of application standards (a source-based measure) as part of manure countries, EU member states still address the wicked problem of diffuse
policies all over Europe (Velthof et al., 2014, Van Grinsven et al., 2016), nutrient pollution of freshwaters by agriculture differently (Wiering
it is still hard to pinpoint diffuse pollution from the exact sources, and et al., 2018; Wiering et al., 2020). Concerning the combination of
evidence of the effectiveness of effect-based measures, in the long run, is measures, public authorities include both more effect-based and more
partly lacking (Wiering et al., 2020b, pp. 4–5; Drizo et al., 2022). source-based measures and a variety of strategies for their imple­
To come up with solutions to this wicked problem of nutrient mentation, including more or less voluntary mechanisms, such as in­
pollution of freshwaters, environmental policy and governance research formation sharing, economic incentives, or formal regulations (Gault
has emphasized the role of various individual governance structures for et al., 2015; Tzilivakis et al., 2020). To explain diverse ‘outputs’ under
the effective planning of measures. Key examples for these governance similar problem pressures, the role of governance has been emphasized
structures are the role of organizational integration (e.g., of agricultural which we understand here as “all modes of coordinating social action
and environmental ministries and ministerial departments) and of the aimed at setting and implementing collectively binding rules” (SFB 700,
participation of stakeholders (e.g., of agricultural and environmental 2012). Problem-focussed research and practice in the field of water
stakeholders), which is also highlighted in the Water Framework governance has put forward here a diversity of governance frameworks
Directive (Newig et al., 2005; Graversgaard et al., 2017; Pellegrini et al., for potentially effective water governance (e.g., Pahl-Wostl et al., 2010;
2019; Rimmert et al., 2020; Wiering et al., 2020a). Further, research Hofstra, 2013; Jiménez et al., 2020). In the specific context of wicked or
increasingly hints at the administrative capacities for wicked problem unstructured problems, governance research has further highlighted a
solving, such as the financial or human resources for integrated planning variety of specific governance dimensions that may affect policy design
(Xerri et al., 2016; Zingraff-Hamed et al., 2020). Also, the national and implementation (e.g., Hoppe, 2011; Head, 2022). As this contri­
approach has been mentioned as a key variable, particularly the role of bution is dealing with the specific problem of diffuse pollution by
consensual versus more conflictual policy styles (Richardson et al., agricultural sources, we have developed a focused approach to this
1982; Van Waarden, 1995; De Vito et al., 2020, p.5; Wiering and problem and selected the most relevant governance characteristics that
Havinga, 2021). But while research on individual governance structures deal with sector-integration, participation and consensual or more
for addressing wicked environmental problems is abundant, empirical conflictual relationships of the sectors. Next to this, the study is about
evidence regarding the comparative effects or aggregated role of these implementation of measures and policy instruments, so we have added
governance structures for the practical and actual measures taken is ‘capacities’ to do so to the selection of governance characteristics. Thus,

2
M. Wiering et al. Journal of Environmental Management 332 (2023) 117329

recognizing the need for a multi-dimensional but wickedness-related Institutional integration refers to the specific institutional framework
governance framework, we focus here on the following governance enabling the planning of measures, where we focus on the level of
structures: the ‘general national approach’, ‘organizational structures’, integration between the environmental/water domain and the agricul­
‘participation’, and the ‘capacities of public authorities’ (Schrama, tural domain. According to Wiering et al. (2018, 2020), this institutional
2012; Behagel and Arts, 2014; Anker, 2015; Drazkiewicz et al., 2015; framework can vary along a scale of integration, including two di­
Graversgaard et al., 2016, 2017; Weitz et al., 2017). One assumption is mensions: First, organizational integration is key, referring to the formal
that a consensual national approach, higher organizational integration, integration of water and agricultural organizations, through joint in­
higher involvement of stakeholders, and larger capacities can result in a stitutions or other forms of institutionalized collaboration, varying from
more diverse set of measures (see section 2.4) and may thus be best the clear separation of responsibilities between ministries to the exis­
suited to address goal diversity or conflicts, complexity and uncertainty tence of institutionalized exchange and the responsibility for nutrient
of wicked problems. However, this has also been questioned, e.g., con­ pollution within one joint ministry. Second, program integration is
cerning the role and influence of personal interests of lobby organiza­ considered, referring to the qualitative integration of organizations
tions in participatory processes. But while these relationships are through the existence of joint programs on water management and
heavily discussed, the comparative effects of the diverse governance agriculture in which instruments are decided upon together, varying
structures on the nature of measures planned have not been analyzed from separated programs to the existence of joint programs of water
systematically. This study, therefore, takes a comparative approach in management and agriculture.
combining the four potential influencing factors with the nature of Turning to the authorities’ capacities, we refer to the planning ca­
measures taken to address the wicked problem of diffuse nitrogen pacity of public authorities, and more specifically to the resources for
pollution of freshwaters by agriculture (see Fig. 1, and as further planning (e.g., Patterson et al., 2013; Wu et al., 2018). We assume these
explained in the following section). resources to vary along a scale of resource availability, including human
resources (i.e., the existence of sufficiently skilled personnel in public
2.2. Governance structures authorities to plan relevant measures) and financial resources (i.e.,
enough funding for planning under complex conditions, including
Governance is here broadly defined as “all modes of coordinating relevant information gathering). The planning capacity can vary from a
social action aimed at setting and implementing collectively binding low degree (i.e., frequently discussed as not having enough resources),
rules” (SFB 700, 2012)”. Most often, this includes the constellation of to a middle degree (i.e., some lack of human or financial resources for
public and private actors and institutions that deal with or are relevant planning), to a high degree (e.g., enough skilled personnel, and funding
for influencing and steering the public domain (Stoker, 1998; Steurer, for planning).
2013). As stated previously, we focus on four governance structures, In terms of participation, the width of stakeholders involved, their
including the general national approach to problem-solving, the insti­ degree of involvement, and their negotiation power traditionally play a
tutional integration, the capacities of public authorities, and the role (Mostert, 2003; Fung, 2006). Stakeholders are here defined as all
participation of stakeholders. These governance structures are assumed those being affected by decisions, but we will mostly focus on the water
to be independent of each other but overlaps and clusters of factors are and agricultural stakeholders involved in the implementation of the
not excluded. To make comparison possible we have categorized these WFD. In terms of the width of stakeholders, representative stakeholders
factors, varying from low to high degrees, and therewith build a picture could not be involved, partly be involved, or be involved to a large
of governance intensity in planning. extent. Their degree of involvement in planning can vary from pure
The national approach refers to the way how States generally address information sharing, via the possibility to share recommendations to
problems, in this case, agricultural diffuse pollution and the imple­ co-decision-making. Finally, negotiation power describes the actual
mentation of the WFD. Classic scholars on national policy styles power in negotiations, varying from a weak to a strong power position.
(Richardson et al., 1982; Van Waarden, 1995) differentiate between
more consensual and antagonistic approaches between actors. In our 2.3. The planning output in terms of measures
case, consensuality puts a strong emphasis on joint responsibilities and
joint policymaking (this reasoning towards integration) between agri­ We relate the above governance characteristics to ‘outputs’ in terms
cultural and environmental (including water management) stake­ of the nature of practical measures taken to address the problem of
holders. In contrast, more antagonistic approaches hint at conflicting diffuse nitrogen pollution of freshwater resources by agriculture. Here,
relations between agriculture and environmental interests, translated we distinguish between the nature of interventions (measures) and the
into a discourse of separate responsibilities and separations of relevant nature of policy instruments chosen. In terms of the nature of interventions,
policy dossiers (see Wiering et al., 2020a). measures can be more source-based or effect-based. Source-based in­
terventions are here defined as preventive measures and mostly deal
with (organic) fertilizer policies or structural measures for agriculture
which mean to be preventative and are stricter than the usual, already
prescribed, measures of the Nitrates Directive. Effect-based in­
terventions include measures that are rather reactive and come after the
actual application of (organic) fertilizers, such as buffer zones, filtering
water, cleaning surface water, or other forms of water treatment
(Wiering et al., 2020a). Policy instruments classically include a domi­
nance of communication or advise-oriented voluntary measures (ser­
mons), financial or economic instruments (carrots), and regulations
(sticks), or a mix of instruments (Bemelmans-Videc et al., 1998).

2.4. Relationships between governance and measures

What is the relationship between the various governance structures

and the nature of measures taken? We assume here that different types
of relationships are possible. First of all, we hypothesize that higher oc­
Fig. 1. Basic conceptual framework. currences of the individual influencing factors (so, roughly, a consensual

3
M. Wiering et al. Journal of Environmental Management 332 (2023) 117329

approach, higher institutional integration, higher involvement of agricultural industry’ of Germany, which has its prosperity and food
stakeholders, and larger capacities) result in a more diverse set of mea­ security deeply rooted in agriculture and livestock farming (Kastens and
sures, including, in particular, both source- and effect-based measures Newig, 2007; Newig, 2007; Colon et al., 2018). The Netherlands, as a
(hypothesis 1) and a mix of instruments that go beyond voluntary second example, practices intense agriculture but is also influenced by
measures (hypothesis 2). This is mostly based on the idea that all vari­ pressures from the European rivers the Meuse, Rhine, Scheldt, and Ems
ables matter for integrative planning and that individual factors add to that discharge into the North Sea (van Gaalen et al., 2016; Wiering et al.,
each other in their relevance for planning. The interactions associated 2020a). Belgium (Flanders), Denmark, and France show similar patterns
with consensual policy styles, integration, and broad participation of as intensive agriculture poses serious threats to water quality (Bouleau
stakeholders, for instance, may lead to additional information and in­ et al., 2020; Wiering et al., 2020a). In comparison to these cases, the case
formation synthesis, and, therefore, also to a more diverse set of mea­ of Ireland is slightly different as Ireland has relatively extensive farming
sures for this wider group of stakeholders (Newig et al., 2005; practices with a strong role in cattle grazing (O’Riordan et al., 2021).
Drazkiewicz et al., 2015, p. 212, Graversgaard et al., 2017; Wiering However, Ireland has a growth strategy in agriculture (Food Wise) and
et al., 2020). Further, strong capacities of authorities might increase the scholars warn against increasing pressure of diffuse pollution in more
planning of more complex sets of measures and instruments in contrast intensive areas of Ireland, mainly in the south of Ireland (Harrison et al.,
to a single type of measures or instruments only. And strong capacities of 2019).
authorities might secure the actual implementation of chosen measures In terms of differences, we find that these cases have the potential for
or policy instruments. different governance structures, on the one hand, with potentially
different outcomes in terms of measures and instruments, on the other
Hypothesis 1. The higher the occurrences of the individual gover­
hand. In Germany and Belgium, for instance, the regions have legislative
nance factors, the more diverse the measures (effect-based and source-
and executive powers and strong competencies in environmental, water,
based) can be and, therefore, the higher the occurrence of source-
and agricultural policies (Mees et al., 2018). Also, the Netherlands has
based measures. Conversely, lower occurrences of the individual
relatively strong regional water authorities (waterschappen) (Kaufmann
governance factors may result in less diversity in measures and higher
and Wiering, 2022). In contrast, France has had a more central approach
occurrences of (only) effect-based measures.
to water and agricultural management, even though the basin approach
Hypothesis 2. The higher the occurrences of the individual gover­ and the role of local authorities in French water resource management
nance factors, the more diverse the types of policy instruments (sermons, have been substantiated over time (Jager et al., 2016; Colon et al.,
carrots as well as sticks) can be, and therefore the higher the occurrence 2018). Further in terms of differences, the cases also show potential
of mandatory measures (sticks). Conversely, lower occurrences of the differences with regards to the measures taken. Denmark, for instance,
individual governance factors would result in less diversity in the types could initially be seen as an environmental pioneer and worked hard on
of policy instruments, and higher occurrences of (only) voluntary the reduction of the nutrient load in light of the Nitrates Directive.
measures (sermons and carrots). However, in later stages, environmental ambitions appeared to be
We fully understand that the governance factors could also have problematic, which was reflected in delays in creating river basin plans
other effects. Strong interactions with agricultural institutions and and in meeting the demands of the WFD (Graversgaard et al., 2017). In
stakeholders, so strong participation and integration might also lead to comparison, Germany has traditionally had a hard time in planning and
less intrusive measures and therefore more effect-based measures or implementing strict measures to address nitrate pollution of freshwaters,
more voluntary instruments (Rimmert et al., 2020; Kirschke and Kosow, which expresses in repeated treaty violation proceedings on the site of
2021). We will also have a close look at these reverse effects. Our hy­ the European Union (Kirschke et al., 2019). Belgium (Flanders), as a
potheses suggest that the additive effects (consensual, integrated, third example, is again different, as we see different developments in
participatory governance, and strong capacities of government) lead to a sector integration and regional differentiation of policies, e.g., the
broader range of measures and policy instruments. stricter policies for so-called focus areas and focus farms (Wiering et al.,
2018, 2020).
3. Methods A more difficult part of the analysis was to give overviews of the
nature of measures. In the practice of WFD implementation, we speak of
3.1. Case selection, governance structures, and defining the measures a source-based measure as a measure that prevents diffuse pollution to
taken happen by interfering at the source of pollution as much as possible.
However, such WFD measures could have a general coverage and far-
This study follows a comparative case study approach to analyse the reaching effects, for example, with adjustments of general application
effects of governance structures on the nature of measures and types of standards for organic fertilizers (thus stricter than the already existing,
instruments chosen to address nitrogen pollution from agriculture. The mandatory regime of the Nitrate Directive to reduce phosphates and
comparative case study includes six European member states, namely nitrates levels). Other examples concern adjustments of mandatory ni­
Belgium (region Flanders), Denmark, France, Germany (region Lower trates levels in groundwater (deviating from the existing drinking water
Saxony), Ireland, and the Netherlands (see fact sheets in Appendix A for standard of 50 NO3 mg/l) or caps on intensive and extensive livestock
a detailed description). These cases have been chosen as they are most farming in light of the WFD. ‘Source based’ could also concern less
similar in terms of general legal framework conditions and problem intrusive and less far-reaching measures, such as farm-based measures of
pressures, but rather different in terms of governance structures. In smarter nutrient management, or smarter bookkeeping. Somewhere in-
terms of similarities, all six cases include long-standing member states of between source-based and effect-based measures are catch crops. In
the European Union. Thus, the countries had to implement European short, there is a wide range of source-based measures. In addition, the
Directives, including the Water Framework Directive and associated WFD-policy documents are not reporting on the actual measures taken
Directives such as the Nitrates Directives from the very start. By and if these are taken in light of the Nitrates Directive, Drinking Water
consequence, the member states had similar time horizons for planning Directive, or WFD.
and implementing measures to address nitrogen pollution of freshwa­ It was deemed impossible to list all (countless) measures of diffuse
ters. In all six cases, improvement of water quality, in general, and pollution, and further specify the analysis to supplementary measures for
nutrient pollution of freshwaters by agriculture, in particular, are causes the WFD and Key Types of Measures (KTM) relating to diffuse pollution
for concern. These cases are thus different from some southern European from agriculture (KTM-2). Yet again, within these categories, WFD-
countries, which are faced with water scarcity problems (EEA, 2018). reporting is often superficial on the exact measures taken, therefore
One example is Lower Saxony in Germany, the ‘Silicon Valley of we further detailed our knowledge by searching for specific labels used

4
M. Wiering et al. Journal of Environmental Management 332 (2023) 117329

for measures in interviews, policy documents, and academic literature for the implementation of the WFD.
on implementation (for example, buffer strips, catch crops, fencing,
agricultural practice advise, standards for fertilizers, all in light of the 4. Results
WFD) and discussed our outcomes in workshops and reporting for
knowledge institutes (e.g., Netherlands Environmental Assessment 4.1. Governance conditions
Agency). To further specify our search, we mostly looked for mandatory
measures that were related to the WFD (see more in section 4). The comparison of the six cases based on the documentary analyses
We have tried to systematically scrutinize the governance charac­ shows similarities and differences in terms of the national approach, the
teristics and measures in these six cases, but differences in WFD- governance structures, participation, and capacities.
reporting and regional cases or river basins in academic literature can In terms of a consensual approach, the countries mostly (except for
lead to differences in interpretation. We could not rule this out, but we Ireland) follow a balanced or mixed approach, meaning that the coun­
partly addressed this by involving national and international experts in tries are neither consensual nor conflict-prone in their style of address­
workshops and seeking external views on implementation in these ing the problem. However, there are also some tendencies to either a
countries in academic literature. This kind of analysis, diving this deep conflict-prone (Denmark, Lower Saxony, or France) or a more consen­
into the implementation of a series of countries, has never been done sual approach (The Netherlands, Belgium-Flanders). While in Denmark
before, as most academic literature focuses on individual river basins, or the political system as a whole is, in general, relatively consensual, there
one dimension of governance in country comparisons (e.g., participa­ have been rather strong conflicts between agricultural stakeholders on
tion) – and if there are comparative country studies to be found, they do the one hand and the environmental and water interests on the other
not descend to the practical implementation of the nature of measures or hand, which seem, however, to have attenuated throughout the process.
type of instruments specifically. In Germany and France, the political system seems, in general, less
consensual, and conflicting interests between the agricultural and
3.2. Data collection and analysis environmental sectors prevail. In comparison, Flanders (in Belgium)
shows, in general, a relatively consensual policy style while also signs of
Data on governance characteristics and the nature of measures taken increasing tensions between the agricultural and the environmental
are in part based on a long-term series of research projects with country sector exist. In contrast to all five cases, Ireland shows rather clear signs
comparisons of five countries since 2009 (Uitenboogaart et al., 2009; of a consensual approach, as there is a strong emphasis on co-
Liefferink et al., 2011; Bourblanc et al., 2013; Wiering et al., 2018; responsibility and consensual decision-making and water quality is un­
Boezeman et al., 2019; Wiering et al., 2020a). This dataset was updated derstood as basic public interest.
by a document- and literature analysis on recent developments In terms of institutional integration, we find various levels of inte­
regarding governance structures and the nature of the measures taken. gration, based on variations of organizational and program integration in
Following traditional triangulation approaches, three types of the six cases. On the one side of the spectrum, both the Netherlands and
empirical data have been combined: (i) interviews and meetings/ Germany show rather low levels of integration. This low level of inte­
workshops data, (ii) national or regional policy documents, and (iii) gration is based on both a low organizational integration (we found two
scientific literature and reports. In terms of interviews, five to seven separate sector-based ministries for agriculture and the environment)
interviews with policymakers, key practitioners, environmental NGO’s and low levels of program integration (with separate, sector-based
and agricultural representatives have been conducted in 5 of the 6 case programs for agriculture, although efforts towards integrated pro­
studies (excluding France). In the Netherlands, more interviews were grams exist). On the other side of the spectrum, Denmark shows a rather
held based on a report on regional differentiation in the implementation high level of integration, as there is high formal integration (as origi­
of the WFD (Boezeman et al., 2019) In total 54 interviews were con­ nally separated ministries have later been merged into one joint minis­
ducted that were part of the assembled underlying research reports. try) and strong tendencies towards program integration, based on
Except for France and Ireland, (international) workshops were orga­ Aquatic Plans for the Environment. In between these two extremes, we
nized with policymakers and key practitioners aimed at discussing in­ find middle degrees of integration in France, Ireland, and Belgium
termediate and end-findings of our reports. National policy documents (Flanders). These three cases show rather low formal integration as there
and reports include river basin management plans, programs of mea­ are separate ministries for agriculture and the environment, but rather a
sures, reports from relevant regional actors (e.g., in the Netherlands, the high program integration, as there are joint programs by the separate
regional water boards), and annual reports on particular programs ministries (e.g., integrated national nitrate action program and strong
dealing with water and agriculture). Regional policy documents further river basin planning in France, or integrated approaches in Ireland and
include European reporting on the types of measures planned in member Flanders).
states as well as evaluation reports from the EU and OECD (e.g., OECD, In terms of participation, we first find that all cases show rather
2014). Complementary to this primary dataset, we refer to academic and middle levels of participation, with middle to high degrees in terms of
research reports evaluating and reflecting on the governance and the the number of stakeholders involved, rather middle degree in terms of the
nature of measures taken. This is particularly relevant for the French degree of involvement, and more or less balanced negotiation positions
case, which does not rely on (more recent) interview data, except for one between agricultural and environmental interests. There are, however,
expert interview. Appendix B provides an overview of the relevant data some nuances between the cases that shall be highlighted below. On the
sources per case. one hand, Ireland and Flanders combine a rather high number of
In terms of governance structures, the information from the three stakeholders with a middle degree of involvement and rather balanced
sources was summarized and categorized by the authors based on negotiation positions. In Ireland, for instance, all important stakeholders
document analysis and interviews (e.g., low versus high integration or (including strong agricultural and water protection interests) at the
participation). In terms of the measures taken, programs of measures, national (Forum, Committee) and regional level (LAWCO) are involved
regional river basin plans, and related regional plans have been in planning, providing important recommendations for planning, based
screened; based on the information, the authors created a general on communication processes and large research programs, among
impression of the nature of measures and the policy instruments used. others. In Belgium (Flanders), all stakeholders (again including strong
Following a communicative validation approach (Kvale, 1995), all agricultural and water protection interests) are involved within in­
judgments were discussed within the team of authors for cross-checking. stitutions of integrated water management, providing here again a
As a result, we expect an in-depth understanding of the combined impact recommendation for planning. In comparison to these two cases, the
of various potential influencing mechanisms on the choice of measures Netherlands, Denmark, Germany (Lower Saxony), and France show

5
M. Wiering et al. Journal of Environmental Management 332 (2023) 117329

generally middle degrees of involvement in terms of the number and

degree of stakeholders. In terms of the number of stakeholders, we
generally find here that the most important stakeholders are involved,
but also that certain groups such as agricultural businesses are over-
represented (in France, Germany-Lower Saxony) or that stakeholder
processes were for selected periods only (Denmark), also resulting in
partly unbalanced negotiation power of stakeholders.
In terms of capacities, we find that the interviews and policy docu­
ments generally show rather high capacities for planning, including both
human and financial resources. However, there are, again, some dif­
ferences between the cases that shall be highlighted. While we find
strong governance capacities in all cases to plan measures, also resulting
in increased knowledge bases, the case of Germany (Lower Saxony)
shows small signs of the lower capacity of authorities when it comes to
participatory planning. Also, capacity in all cases may vary when it
comes to the actual implementation of measures and to compliance Fig. 2. Summary of governance conditions in six cases.
checks, which are high in Flanders and the Netherlands but lower in
France. These differences are, however, rather small and thus may not and ‘across the board’ patterns and not the exact difference between
explain different outcomes such as the mentioned treaty violation pro­ country X and Y.
ceedings in Germany.
In sum, the results show that, overall, the governance structures in
the implementation of the WFD are not extremely different in the 4.2. Nature of interventions and types of policy instruments
country comparison, but there are nuanced differences (Table 1). In
terms of structures, we find similarities concerning the rather consensual The second step in our analysis is the comparison of the nature of
national approach, however, in some countries, relationships between measures and types of policy instruments in six countries. We tried to
agriculture and environment can be named rather conflictual (France, find overviews of measures, specific to the implementation of the WFD.
Lower Saxony, Denmark) while there are attempts of integration of We, therefore, decided to take a two-step approach: we first paint an
policies at the same time. Diversity exists in institutional integration image of the common nature of measures and policy instruments in the
(rather separated to rather integrated) and in participation (which is countries and then a more specific, combined analysis of both policy in­
middle to high). We did not find extreme differences in the capacity of struments and the nature of interventions.
authorities (generally high). The general image of the nature of measures shows (again) similar­
Broken down to the cases and the overall picture of governance ities in all six cases, with some slight tendencies towards either more
structures (Fig. 2), we find the highest values for Ireland, showing a source- or more effect-based measures. Most measures taken are not
rather consensual approach, strong participation, and (potential) ca­ very intrusive, i.e., we mainly find soft measures that could be source-
pacity of authorities, paired with partly integrated institutions. On the based in terms of preventative interventions. Examples are voluntary
other end, Germany shows only partly a consensual national approach guidance, giving codes of practices, or direct advisory work on fertilizing
(and signs of open conflictual relationships) as well as relatively less (or pesticides), on fencing, zoning, or shared learning and investigation
participation, fewer capacities of authorities, and a rather low level of on agricultural practices trying to (voluntarily) reduce the use of organic
institutional integration. In between these two cases, we find a spectrum or artificial fertilizers (e.g., Bouleau et al., 2020; Giakoumis and Voul­
of varying general approaches, integration, participation, and capacity. voulis, 2019). This is very often combined with (EU – based) subsidy
We would like to emphasize that our analysis is geared towards overall programs for improving water quality practices related to agriculture.

Table 1
Combined governance characteristics, types of interventions and policy instruments.
IE BE (FL) DK FR NL DE (LS)

Governance strong consensuality, medium less consensuality, less consensuality, less consensuality, less consensuality,
structures wide participation, consensuality, mixed in participation, wide participation, mixed in participation, mixed in participation
strong on capacities, wide participation, strong on capacities strong on capacities, strong on capacities, and capacities, less
medium integration strong on capacities, and integration (9,5) mixed in integration weaker integration (8) integration (6,5)
(11) medium integration (9,5)
(10)
Outputs I: Nature of Both source- and Both source- and Both source- and Both source- and Both source- and Both source- and
measures effects based measures effects based effects based measures effects based measures effects based measures effects based
measures measures
Outputs II: Policy Focus on voluntary and Overall, voluntary Mandatory measures Focus on voluntary Focus on voluntary Focus on voluntary
instruments financial instruments and financial at first, later voluntary instruments, in part and financial measures, in part
instruments; and financial mandatory measures instruments, in part incentives and
mandatory measures instruments mandatory measures obligatory measures
in focus areas
Hypothesis 1: Yes Yes Unclear, mixed Unclear, mixed No No
High gover-nance
score gives
variety in inter-
ventions?
Hypothesis 2: High No Yes Yes, initially Unclear, mixed Yes No
gover-nance
score give variety
of policy
instruments?

6
M. Wiering et al. Journal of Environmental Management 332 (2023) 117329

The other group consists of effect-based measures, e.g., riparian buffers, measure to reduce fertilizer use at the farm level by better manure
mini-wetlands, or the cleansing and de-phosphatizing of watercourses management in light of good agricultural practice as prescribed by the
by governmental authorities themselves. Countries generally show a European Union (as was mentioned in France; Bouleau et al., 2020, p.
combination of source-based and effect-based measures. 540); we find this in all other countries too. Therefore, hypothesis 1 is
In terms of the types of policy instruments used, we generally find two not confirmed.
sets of instruments: communication and advise-oriented measures (ser­ If we turn to the second hypothesis, relating to the policy instruments
mons) and financial incentives (carrots). Only very occasionally, we do used, while keeping an eye on the nature of measures, we would expect
find obligatory measures (sticks) as part of supplementary measures for that higher aggregated governance scores would correlate with a greater
the WFD (so besides the obligations that are already implemented variety of policy instruments used, including ‘sticks’. This holds for
because of other Directives, e.g., the Nitrates Directive). In the case of Flanders (Belgium) to a certain extent, as Flanders has a variety of policy
France, we find over five times more voluntary measures than obligatory instruments, including mandatory, regulatory instruments (‘sticks’),
measures. In Ireland, there are many programs with source-based and indeed. However, this occurs only in specific focus areas. Confirmation
effect-based measures, but all are voluntary and/or incentive-based. The failed in the case of Ireland, which has hardly any sticks, on the contrary,
Netherlands mostly builds on voluntary measures and incentives, but it relies heavily on economic and voluntary instruments: carrots (sub­
(very) incidentally include stricter, mandatory measures (e.g., Dutch sidy schemes) and sermons (communication, advice, joint learning pi­
ecological valuable creeks). Germany shows mostly voluntary in­ lots). This is also quite obvious as Ireland does not exceed the limits of
centives, and only in part economic incentives and obligatory measures. basic measures according to the Nitrate Directive, so, strong mandatory
Belgium (Flanders) mostly builds on voluntary measures and subsidies, regimes for supplementary measures of the WFD would probably not be
however including stricter, mandatory measures in specific focus areas accepted there, but diving deeper, we see that it is also a conscious
based on area- and farmer-specific categories of pollution. The focus on choice in Irish policies - and it is related to the history of policies and
mandatory or voluntary measures might also change over time. A good politics on the problematic role of regulation for agriculture (Con­
example is Denmark, which started with mandatory measures for naughton, 2019).
source-based measures (namely restricting the standards for application Testing hypothesis 2 with considering the lower aggregated scores on
of nitrogen (N) from 170 kg to 140 kg/ha) and effect-based measures (e. the governance characteristics we would expect less variety of policy
g., schemes for wide - 10 m - riparian zones, catch crops), which were instruments and less mandatory regulatory policy instruments. This is
later replaced by only voluntary schemes for riparian zones and mini indeed generally true for the Netherlands, but more recently, in the case
wetlands (Jacobsen et al., 2017; Graversgaard et al., 2017). of Germany, we see mandatory regulatory policy instruments (sticks) for
Concluding, across the board we find a mix of (soft) source-based and effect-based measures because of derogation policies in light of the WFD
effect-based measures, and there is a general tendency towards volun­ and other policies (Nitrates Directive), so only after pressures from the
tary and, in part also, financial-economic instruments. Most source- EU level. All in all, our general conclusion must be that it is a mixed
based measures are guided by voluntary instruments and financial- picture and both hypotheses have to be rejected, reconsidered, and
economic incentives. Very occasionally, source-based measures are possibly further refined. There is no clear relationship between the added
more intrusive and made mandatory (sticks), as we have seen in Flan­ scores on the four influencing governance structures on the nature of
ders (focus areas) and Denmark (however, temporarily). interventions and the type of instruments used. Some cases confirm our
expectations, some do not. In addition, we did not find any other clear
5. Discussion pattern in the defined governance structures separately and choices of
interventions and policy instruments. The practical measures taken end
Governance and policy research very often suggest that specific up being remarkably similar in these six countries while showing
governance characteristics can support the planning of effective water different governance characteristics.
quality measures. We combined, based on policy documents, academic Despite that there are no overall patterns found, there are some
desk research, and interviews, a set of governance structures in six relevant differences in governance approaches (or ‘styles’) of countries
countries with the nature of interventions and type of policy instruments that influence the nature of instruments: Ireland’s approach is strongly
normally used. We were interested in general patterns: do these gover­ consensual, which translates in carrots and sermons for farmers to pre­
nance characteristics point to similar or different directions when it serve the water quality, to at least fight the further deterioration of water
comes to the choice of measures taken? bodies. In Flanders, there is an agreement to have geographical di­
We expected that more consensual, integrated, participatory gover­ visions, namedfocus areas, where mandatory regimes are more impor­
nance characteristics, with high capacities of authorities, increase the tant. But the choice of measures is also dependent on other factors, e.g.,
possibility of having a wider set of measures, and the higher the chances whether there is strong pressure from the EU Commission in light of the
of finding more source-based measures (Hypothesis 1) and a more ‘Basic Measures’ for the WFD. For example, in Germany and Lower
diverse set of policy instruments, including mandatory (sticks) (Hy­ Saxony the infringement procedure on fertilizing policies related to the
pothesis 2). The argument was that the more the different policy sectors Nitrates Directive was influential for extra measures taken for the WFD,
are involved in joint, integrated (environmental or water resources) and in Denmark strong pressure and court cases stemming from agri­
management, the wider the set of WFD-measures that can be adopted culture turned stricter, mandatory, source-based measures into volun­
across the borders of policies, in this case including more (mandatory) tary measures. As previously mentioned, Ireland has relatively less
source-based measures for agriculture (Wiering et al., 2020). direct problem pressure when compared to agricultural pollution of
What did we find on hypothesis 1? We expected that higher aggre­ groundwater (50mg/l N03), but there is a general critique that Ireland
gated governance scores correlate with greater variety of interventions, lacks ‘primary legislation’ or regulatory arrangements for the WFD too
including source-based measures, and this is indeed what we found in (O’Riordan et al., 2021, p. 31), in addition to its ‘softer’ policy in­
countries with relative high scores, in Ireland, Belgium and in part also struments. In this way, additional factors can play a role that lead to
in Denmark. However, with countries that have lower occurrences or deviations from the causal relationships investigated.
scores on the governance characteristics, we see the same: a variety of
interventions, including both source-based and effect-based measures. 6. Conclusion
This is, partly, due to this broad category of source-based measures:
source-based measures can be highly effective substantial (general) Although there is variety in governance structures across the six
measures to reduce phosphates or nitrogen for organic fertilizing (like investigated countries (and regions) there is remarkable convergence in
reduced application standards in Denmark or Flanders) or they can be a the types of measures and instruments chosen. In most countries under

7
M. Wiering et al. Journal of Environmental Management 332 (2023) 117329

investigation, the agents involved largely shy away from more intrusive Data availability
source-based measures (e.g., adjusting organic fertilizer standards) with
mandatory instruments for diffuse pollution of agricultural sources in Data will be made available on request.
light of the WFD, although EU-policies have prevention and ‘the polluter
pays’ as core principles and the problem of diffuse pollution has been Acknowledgments
known for decades now. The WFD measures are mostly farmer-friendly,
voluntary, or partly incentive-based measures (subsidy programs, The authors wish to thank the Netherlands Environmental Assess­
compensation programs), and in exceptional cases, we see stricter re­ ment Agency for the initial funding of underlying research projects and
gimes. Next to other characteristics of the ‘wicked problem’ of diffuse student assistant Britte Rijk for her support. There were very helpful
pollution (see section 1) this very probably is also due to the strong discussions on a preceding paper at the panel ‘Nexus Governance and
stakeholder position of agricultural interests in dealing with this prob­ Policy Inter-Linkages in Food and Agricultural Governance’ at the ECPR
lem and the difficulties of taking water quality measures that strongly General Conference in September 2020.
interfere with agricultural policies - therefore crossing policy borders
and interfering with national and international (agricultural) policies. In Appendix A. Supplementary data
sum, between good governance intentions and practical results, the
inherent wickedness of diffuse pollution, court cases, politics, policy Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.
histories, and fear of stakeholders stand in the way. Nevertheless, we org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2023.117329.
think our explorative quest in scrutinizing the relation between gover­
nance and practical measures taken is very worthwhile as policy effec­ References
tivity, although circumstantial and contingent, should be taken
seriously: naively stressing more participation, more integration, more Anker, H.T., 2015. Agricultural nitrate pollution: regulatory approaches in the EU and
consensual approaches or more governance capacities does not lead Denmark. Nordisk Miljoeraettslig Tidskrift 2, 7–23.
WWF, 2018. Bringing Life Back to Europe’s Waters; Brochure by Martina Mlinaric and Jack
automatically to effective sets of practical measures, apparently, and we
Rhodes. WWF.
should be more aware of the implementation choices made on the Behagel, J.H., Arts, B., 2014. Democratic governance and political rationalities in the
ground, in both nature of measures and policy instrument mixes. implementation of the water framework directive in The Netherlands. Publ. Adm.
92, 291–306. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12059.
The more critical societal problem is that, overall, the picture looms
Bemelmans-Videc, M.L., Rist, R.C., Vedung, E., 1998. Carrots, Sticks and Sermons: Policy
that the WFD has a structurally insufficient impact. Current WFD prac­ Instruments and Their Evaluation. Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick, NJ, USA.
tices and policies might not be the most effective way of working on Boezeman, D., Liefferink, J., Wiering, M., 2019. De governance van de Kaderrichtlijn
improving the ecology of water bodies and catchment areas, the core Water, regionale verschillen en sturingsopties. Water Gov, pp. 72–81.
Bouleau, G., Barbier, R., Halm-Lemeille, M.P., Tassin, B., Buchs, A., Habets, F., 2020.
aim of the WFD. There is little progress on this issue and some water Despite great expectations in the Seine river basin, the WFD did not reduce diffuse
bodies are even worsening in their ecological quality. All signs point at pollution. Water Altern. (WaA) 13, 534–555.
stricter policy instruments and most scholars in and outside our Bourblanc, M., Crabbé, A., Liefferink, D., Wiering, M., 2013. The marathon of the hare
and the tortoise: implementing the EU Water Framework Directive. J. Environ.
comparative case study give pleas for more substantial, effective mea­ Plann. Manag. 56 https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2012.726197, 1494-1467.
sures for agricultural diffuse pollution (Romero et al., 2016; Giakoumis Colon, M., Richard, S., Roche, P.A., 2018. The evolution of water governance in France
and Voulvoulis, 2019; Bouleau et al., 2020; Boezeman et al., 2019; from the 1960s: disputes as major drivers for radical changes within a consensual
framework. Water Int. 43, 109–132. https://doi.org/10.1080/
Jacobsen et al., 2017; Kirschke et al., 2019); environmental NGO’s are 02508060.2018.1403013.
increasingly warning for the problematic progress of the WFD in this Commision, European, 2019a. Implementation of the water framework directive (2000/
regard: “Member States need to adopt and implement binding measures 60/EC) and the floods directive (2007/60/EC), second river basin management
plans, first flood risk management plans. Brussels 26.2, 2019 SWD(2019) 30 final.
to tackle diffuse pollution, as voluntary approaches have proven not to
Connaughton, B., 2019. The Implementation of Environmental Policy in Ireland: Lessons
deliver the scale of change needed to achieve the WFD objectives” from Translating EU Directives into Action. Manchester University Press.
(WWF, 2018: 18). For the next steps in our scholarly work, it would be Correljé, A., François, D., Verbeke, T., 2007. Integrating water management and
principles of policy: towards an EU framework? J. Clean. Prod. 15, 1499–1506.
useful to investigate the more area-specific regimes for the WFD with
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2006.07.034.
source-based and effect-based measures with acknowledgment of the Drazkiewicz, A., Challies, E., Newig, J., 2015. Public participation and local
wickedness of diffuse pollution. Although ‘wicked’, designing and environmental planning: testing factors influencing decision quality and
testing alternative settings for the WFD implementation on this topic is implementation in four case studies from Germany. Land Use Pol. 46, 211–222.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.02.010.
crucial for our knowledge on effective governance and closing the gap Drizo, A., Johnston, C., Guðmundsson, J., 2022. An inventory of good management
between good intentions and effective measures for a good status of all practices for nutrient reduction, recycling and recovery from agricultural runoff in
waters in Europe. europe’s northern periphery and arctic region. Water 14 (13), 2132.
Duckett, D., Feliciano, D., Martin-Ortega, J., Munoz-Rojas, J., 2016. Tackling wicked
environmental problems: the discourse and its influence on praxis in Scotland.
Credit author statement Landsc. Urban Plann. 154, 44–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
landurbplan.2016.03.015.
Fung, A., 2006. Varieties of participation in complex governance. Publ. Adm. Rev. 66,
Mark Wiering: Conceptualization, Methodology, Validation, Inves­ 66–75. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2006.00667.x.
tigation, Writing – review & editing, Visualization, Supervision, Project Gault, J., Guillet, M., Hubert, C., Paulin, F., Soulié, M., 2015. Analysis of Implementation
administration, Funding acquisition. Sabrina Kirschke: Conceptualiza­ of the Nitrates Directive by Other Member States of the European Union. Ministry of
Ecology, Sustainable Development and Energy, Paris, France, p. 149.
tion, Methodology, Validation, Investigation, Writing – review & edit­
Giakoumis, T., Voulvoulis, N., 2019. Water Framework Directive programmes of
ing, Visualization, Supervision, Project administration. Nasir Uddin measures: lessons from the 1st planning cycle of a catchment in England. Sci. Total
Akif: Investigation, Literature review, Resources, Data Collection and Environ. 668, 903–916. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.01.405.
Graversgaard, M., Thorsøe, M.H., Kjeldsen, C., Dalgaard, T., 2016. Evaluating public
Data Analysis..
participation in Denmark’s water councils: how policy design and boundary
judgments affect water governance. Outlook Agric. 45, 225–230. https://doi.org/
Declaration of competing interest 10.1177/0030727016675691.
Graversgaard, M., Jacobsen, B.H., Kjeldsen, C., Dalgaard, T., 2017. Stakeholder
Engagement and Knowledge Co-creation in Water Planning. Can public participation
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial increase cost-effectiveness? Water, Switzerland, p. 151. https://doi.org/10.3390/
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence w9030191, 9.
the work reported in this paper. Harrison, S., McAree, C., Mulville, W., Sullivan, T., 2019. The problem of agricultural
‘diffuse’ pollution: getting to the point. Sci. Total Environ. 677, 700–717. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.04.169.
Head, B.W., 2008. Wicked problems in public policy. Publ. Pol. 3 (2), 101–118.

8
M. Wiering et al. Journal of Environmental Management 332 (2023) 117329

Head, B.W., 2022. Wicked Problems in Public Policy: Understanding and Responding to Roidt, M., Avellán, T., 2019. Learning from integrated management approaches to
Complex Challenges. Springer Nature, p. 176. implement the Nexus. J. Environ. Manag. 237, 609–616.
Hofstra, M., 2013. Water governance, a framework for better communication. Water Romero, E., Le Gendre, R., Garnier, J., Billen, G., Fisson, C., Silvestre, M., Riou, P., 2016.
Governance 1, 9–13. Long-term water quality in the lower Seine: lessons learned over 4 decades of
Hoppe, R., 2011. The Governance of Problems: Puzzling, Powering and Participation. monitoring. Environ. Sci. Pol. 58, 141–154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Policy Press. envsci.2016.01.016.
Jacobsen, B.H., Anker, H.T., Baaner, L., 2017. Implementing the water framework Schrama, G.J., 2012. Drinking Water Supply and Agricultural Pollution: Preventive
directive in Denmark – lessons on agricultural measures from a legal and regulatory Action by the Water Supply Sector in the European Union and the United States, vol.
perspective. Land Use Pol. 67, 98–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. 11. Springer Science & Business Media.
landusepol.2017.05.021. SFB 700, 2012. Grundbegriffe der Governanceforschung. SFB-Governance Working
Jager, N.W., Challies, E., Kochskämper, E., Newig, J., Benson, D., Blackstock, K., Paper Series 36. http://www.sfb-governance.de/en/publikationen/sfb-700-workin
Collins, K., Ernst, A., Evers, M., Feichtinger, J., Fritsch, O., Gooch, G., Grund, W., g_papers/wp36/SFB-Governance-Working-Paper-36.pdf. (Accessed 2 December
Hedelin, B., Hernández-Mora, N., Hüesker, F., Huitema, D., Irvine, K., Klinke, A., 2022). accessed on.
Lange, L., Loupsans, D., Lubell, M., Maganda, C., Matczak, P., Parés, M., Sharma, A., 2021. The wicked problem of diffuse nutrient pollution from agriculture.
Saarikoski, H., Slavíková, L., Van Der Arend, S., Von Korff, Y., 2016. Transforming J. Environ. Law 32, 471–502. https://doi.org/10.1093/JEL/EQAA017.
European water governance? Participation and river basin management under the Steurer, R., 2013. Disentangling governance: a synoptic view of regulation by
EU water framework directive in 13 member states. Water (Switzerland) 8, 156. government, business and civil society. Pol. Sci. 46 https://doi.org/10.1007/
https://doi.org/10.3390/w8040156. s11077-013-9177-y.
Jiménez, A., Saikia, P., Giné, R., Avello, P., Leten, J., Liss Lymer, B., et al., 2020. Stoker, G., 1998. Governance as theory: five propositions. Int. Soc. Sci. J. 50, 17–28.
Unpacking water governance: a framework for practitioners. Water 12 (3), 827. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2451.00106.
Kastens, B., Newig, J., 2007. The Water Framework Directive and agricultural nitrate Tzilivakis, J., Green, A., Warner, D.J., Lewis, K.A., 2020. Identification of Approaches
pollution: will great expectations in Brussels be dashed in Lower Saxony? Eur. and Measures in Action Programmes under Directive 91/676/EEC. Final Report:
Environ. 17, 231–246. https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.446. Report Prepared for Directorate-General Environment, European Commission, for
Kaufmann, M., Wiering, M., 2022. The role of discourses in understanding institutional Project ENV.D.1/SER/2018/0017 by the Agriculture and Environment Research
stability and change–an analysis of Dutch flood risk governance. J. Environ. Pol. Unit (AERU). University of Hertfordshire, United Kingdom (NAPINFO report).
Plann. 24, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/1523908X.2021.1935222. Uitenboogaart, Y., van Kempen, J.J.H., Wiering, M.A., van Rijswick, H.F.M.W., 2009.
Kirschke, S., Kosow, H., 2021. Designing policy mixes for emerging wicked problems. Dealing with Complexity and Policy Discretion. A Comparison of the Implementation
The case of pharmaceutical residues in freshwaters. J. Environ. Pol. Plann. 1–12 of the European Water Framework Directive in Five Member States. Den Haag: SDU
https://doi.org/10.1080/1523908X.2021.1960808. Uitgevers, Waterstaatreeks.
Kirschke, S., Borchardt, D., Newig, J., 2017. Mapping complexity in environmental Van Grinsven, H.J.M., Tiktak, A., Rougoor, C.W., 2016. Evaluation of the Dutch
governance: a comparative analysis of 37 priority issues in German water implementation of the nitrates directive, the water framework directive and the
management. Environmental Policy and Governance 27 (6), 534–559. national emission ceilings directive. NJAS - Wageningen J. Life Sci. 78, 69–84.
Kirschke, S., Häger, A., Kirschke, D., Völker, J., 2019. Agricultural Nitrogen Pollution of https://doi.org/10.1016/j.njas.2016.03.010.
Freshwater in Germany. The Governance of Sustaining a Complex Problem, vol. 11. Van Waarden, F., 1995. Persistence of national policy styles: a study of their institutional
Water, Switzerland, p. 2450. https://doi.org/10.3390/w11122450. foundations. In: Unger, B., van Waarden, F. (Eds.), Convergence or Diversity?
Kvale, S., 1995. The social construction of validity. Qualitative inquiry. Qual. Inq. 1, Internationalization and Economic Policy Response. Avebury, Aldershot,
19–40. pp. 333–372. UK.
Liefferink, D., Wiering, M., Uitenboogaart, Y., 2011. The EU Water Framework Directive: Velthof, G.L., Lesschen, J.P., Webb, J., Pietrzak, S., Miatkowski, Z., Pinto, M., Kros, J.,
a multi-dimensional analysis of implementation and domestic impact. Land Use Pol. Oenema, O., 2014. The impact of the Nitrates Directive on nitrogen emissions from
28, 712–722. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2010.12.006. agriculture in the EU-27 during 2000-2008. Sci. Total Environ. 468, 1225–1233.
Mees, H., Crabbé, A., Suykens, C., 2018. Belgian flood risk governance: explaining the https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2013.04.058.
dynamics within a fragmented governance arrangement. J. Flood Risk Manag. 11, Vito, L. De, Fairbrother, M., Russel, D., 2020. Implementing the Water Framework
271–280. https://doi.org/10.1111/jfr3.12330. Directive and Tackling Diffuse Pollution from Agriculture: Lessons from England and
Mostert, E., 2003. The challenge of public participation. Water Pol. 5, 179–197. https:// Scotland, vol. 12. Water, Switzerland, p. 244. https://doi.org/10.3390/w12010244.
doi.org/10.2166/wp.2003.0011. Waylen, K.A., Blackstock, K.L., Marshall, K.B., Dunglinson, J., 2015.
Newig, J., 2007. Symbolic environmental legislation and societal self-deception. Environ. Participation–prescription tension in natural resource management: the case of
Pol. 16, 276–296. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644010701211783. diffuse pollution in scottish water management. Environ. Policy Gov. 25, 111–124.
Newig, J., Pahl-Wostl, C., Sigel, K., 2005. The role of public participation in managing https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.1666.
uncertainty in the implementation of the Water Framework Directive. Eur. Environ. Weitz, N., Strambo, C., Kemp-Benedict, E., Nilsson, M., 2017. Closing the governance
15, 333–343. https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.398. gaps in the water-energy-food nexus: insights from integrative governance. Global
OECD, 2014. Water Governance in the Netherlands: Fit for the Future? OECD Studies on Environ. Change 45, 165–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2017.06.006.
Water. Wiering, M., Havinga, T., 2021. Convergence in administrative implementation styles in
O’Riordan, J., Boyle, R., O’Leary, F., Shannon, L., 2021. Using the OECD Water the European Union?. In: The Routledge Handbook of Policy Styles, pp. 188–203.
Governance Indicator Framework to Review the Implementation of the River Basin https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429286322-19.
Management Plan for Ireland 2018–2021. Environmental Protection Agency, Wiering, M., Liefferink, D., Kaufmann, M., Kurstjens, N., 2018. Final Report: the
Wexford, Ireland. Implementation of the Water Framework Directive: a Focused Comparison of
Pahl-Wostl, C., Holtz, G., Kastens, B., Knieper, C., 2010. Analyzing complex water Governance Arrangements to Improve Water Quality. Radboud University,
governance regimes: the management and transition framework. Environ. Sci. Pol. Nijmegen.
13 (7), 571–581. Wiering, M., Liefferink, D., Boezeman, D., Kaufmann, M., Crabbé, A., Kurstjens, N.,
Pahl-Wostl, C., Lebel, L., Knieper, C., Nikitina, E., 2012. From applying panaceas to 2020a. The wicked problem the water framework directive cannot solve. In: The
mastering complexity: toward adaptive water governance in river basins. Environ. Governance Approach in Dealing with Pollution of Nutrients in Surface Water in the
Sci. Pol. 23, 24–34. Netherlands, Flanders, Lower Saxony, Denmark and Ireland. Water, Switzerland,
Patterson, J.J., Smith, C., Bellamy, J., 2013. Understanding enabling capacities for p. 1240. https://doi.org/10.3390/W12051240, 12.
managing the “wicked problem” of nonpoint source water pollution in catchments: a Wiering, M., Boezeman, D., Crabbé, A., 2020b. The water framework directive and
conceptual framework. J. Environ. Manag. 128, 441–452. https://doi.org/10.1016/ agricultural diffuse pollution: fighting a running battle? Water 12, 1447. https://doi.
j.jenvman.2013.05.033. org/10.3390/w12051447.
Pellegrini, E., Bortolini, L., Defrancesco, E., 2019. Coordination and participation boards Wu, X., Ramesh, M., Howlett, M., 2018. Policy capacity: conceptual framework and
under the European water framework directive: different approaches used in some essential components. In: Policy Capacity and Governance. Springer International
EU countries. Water (Switzerland) 11, 833. https://doi.org/10.3390/w11040833. Publishing, Cham, pp. 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-54675-9_1.
Persson, Å., Runhaar, H., Karlsson-Vinkhuyzen, S., Mullally, G., Russel, D., Widmer, A., Xerri, F., Jeffrey, P., Smith, H.M., 2016. Unpacking organizational capacity in the context
2018. Editorial: environmental policy integration: taking stock of policy practice in of the water framework directive. Int. J. River Basin Manag. 14, 317–327. https://
different contexts. Environ. Sci. Pol. 85, 113–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. doi.org/10.1080/15715124.2016.1193508.
envsci.2018.03.029. Zingraff-Hamed, A., Schröter, B., Schaub, S., Lepenies, R., Stein, U., Hüesker, F.,
Richardson, J.J., Gustafsson, G., Jordan, G., 1982. The concept of policy style. In: Meyer, C., Schleyer, C., Schmeier, S., Pusch, M.T., 2020. Perception of bottlenecks in
Richardson, J.J. (Ed.), Policy Styles in Western Europe. George Allen and Unwin, the implementation of the European water framework directive. Water Altern.
London, UK, pp. 1–16. (WaA) 13, 458–483.
Rimmert, M., Baudoin, L., Cotta, B., Kochskämper, E., Newig, J., 2020. Participation in
river basin planning under the water framework directive-Has it benefitted good
water status? Water Altern. (WaA) 13.