Project Briefs About Governance System in Each Case- Study
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Project briefs about governance system in each case- study Authors: ILVO: Els Belmans, Liselot Bourgeois, Lieve Borremans, Eva Kerselaers Action lab leaders and governance responsible: - Belgian action lab: Ellen Pauwelyn, Elien Dupon, Jan Vanwijnsberghe - Danish action lab: Lone S. Kristensen, Peter S. Andersen, Erling Andersen - Irish action lab: Per-Erik Mellander, Edward Burgess, Shervin Shahvi, Owen Fenton - Italian action lab: Nicoleta Suciu, Elisabetta Russo - Polish action lab: Grzegorz Jarnuszewski, Tadeusz Durkowski, Marzena Nowakowska, Anna Kuczyńska - Romanian action: Puscas Alexandra, Oana Rosca Mare, Monica Marian, Claudia Marian - Spanish action lab: Gemma Francés Tudel, Elens Isla Gil, Anna Casanovas Cuscó Ref: WaterProtect D2.2 Version: v1 Date: 31/03/2020 This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme under grant agreement No. 727450 CHANGE RECORD Version Date Description 1.0 31/03/2020 First version WATERPROTECT Ref: WaterProtect D2.2 D2.2 Project briefs governance case-studies Version: v1 Page 2 of 239 Date: 31/03/2020 Contents List of Figures 7 List of Tables 7 List of abbreviations & acronyms 8 Management summary 10 1 Introduction 11 1.1 Structure of the project briefs 11 1.1.1 General characteristics 12 1.1.2 The start situation and local context 12 1.1.3 The process with different actions and measures taken 16 1.1.4 Achievements 16 1.2 Methodology 18 1.2.1 Reporting on the start situation 18 1.2.2 Reporting the ambitions and objectives 19 1.2.3 Reporting the multi-actor process 20 1.2.4 Reporting on the achievements 20 1.2.5 Evaluation and reflection 21 2 Belgian action lab – Bollaertbeek 22 2.1 General characteristics and description of the problem 22 2.2 Start situation 24 2.2.1 The actors and their roles 24 2.2.2 Functioning of the water governance system 27 2.3 Process 34 2.3.1 Representation of the process 34 2.3.2 Evaluation and lessons learned of the process 40 2.3.3 Progress of the process, considerations and points of attention 42 2.4 Achievements by the WaterProtect process 43 2.4.1 Ambition ‘network formation’ 43 2.4.2 Ambition ‘exchange and continuation’ 44 2.4.3 Ambition ‘knowledge building’ 45 This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme under grant agreement No. 727450 WATERPROTECT Ref: WaterProtect D2.2 D2.2 Project briefs governance case-studies Version: v1 Page 3 of 239 Date: 31/03/2020 2.4.4 Ambition ‘actor awareness’ 46 2.4.5 Ambition ‘farmer practices’ 48 2.4.6 Ambition ‘financial support and rewarding system by De Watergroep’ 50 3 Danish action lab – Vester Hjerk 52 3.1 General characteristics and description of the problem 52 3.2 Start situation 54 3.2.1 The actors and their roles 54 3.2.2 Functioning of the water governance system 57 3.3 Process 64 3.3.1 Representation of the process 64 3.3.2 Evaluation and lessons learned of the process 68 3.3.3 Progress of the process, considerations and points of attention 70 3.4 Achievements by the WaterProtect process 71 3.4.1 Ambition ‘network formation’ 71 3.4.2 Ambition ‘knowledge building’ 72 3.4.3 Ambition ‘actor awareness’ 73 3.4.4 Ambition ‘farmer practices’ 74 3.4.5 Ambition ‘common water fund’ 75 4 Irish action lab – Wexford County 77 4.1 General characteristics and description of the problem 77 4.2 Start situation 80 4.2.1 The actors and their roles 80 4.2.2 Functioning of the water governance system 83 4.3 Process 95 4.3.1 Representation of the process 95 4.3.2 Evaluation and lessons learned of the process 99 4.3.3 Progress of the process, considerations and points of attention 101 4.4 Achievements by the WaterProtect process 103 4.4.1 Ambition ‘network formation’ 103 4.4.2 Ambition ‘exchange and continuation’ 104 4.4.3 Ambition ‘knowledge building’ 105 This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme under grant agreement No. 727450 WATERPROTECT Ref: WaterProtect D2.2 D2.2 Project briefs governance case-studies Version: v1 Page 4 of 239 Date: 31/03/2020 4.4.4 Ambition ‘actor awareness’ 106 4.4.5 Ambition ‘farmer practices’ 108 5 Italian action lab – Val Tidone 110 5.1 General characteristics and description of the problem 110 5.2 Start situation 113 5.2.1 The actors and their roles 113 5.2.2 Functioning of the water governance system 117 5.3 Process 126 5.3.1 Representation of the process 126 5.3.2 Evaluation and lessons learned of the process 131 5.3.3 Progress of the process, considerations and points of attention 134 5.4 Achievements by the WaterProtect process 136 5.4.1 Ambition ‘network formation’ 136 5.4.2 Ambition ‘exchange and continuation’ 138 5.4.3 Ambition ‘knowledge building’ 139 5.4.4 Ambition ‘actor awareness’ 140 5.4.5 Ambition ‘farmer practices’ 142 6 Polish action lab – Gowienica river 144 6.1 General characteristics and description of the problem 144 6.2 Start situation 146 6.2.1 The actors and their roles 146 6.2.2 Functioning of the water governance system 150 6.3 Process 161 6.3.1 Representation of the process 161 6.3.2 Evaluation and lessons learned of the process 166 6.3.3 Progress of the process, considerations and points of attention 169 6.4 Achievements by the WaterProtect process 171 6.4.1 Ambition ‘network formation’ 171 6.4.2 Ambition ‘exchange and continuation’ 173 6.4.3 Ambition ‘knowledge building’ 174 6.4.4 Ambition ‘actor awareness’ 176 This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme under grant agreement No. 727450 WATERPROTECT Ref: WaterProtect D2.2 D2.2 Project briefs governance case-studies Version: v1 Page 5 of 239 Date: 31/03/2020 6.4.5 Ambition ‘farmer practices’ 178 7 Romanian action lab – Mara river 179 7.1 General characteristics and description of the problem 179 7.2 Start situation 181 7.2.1 The actors and their roles 181 7.2.2 Functioning of the water governance system 185 7.3 Process 192 7.3.1 Representation of the process 192 7.3.2 Evaluation and lessons learned of the process 196 7.3.3 Progress of the process, considerations and points of attention 199 7.4 Achievements by the WaterProtect process 200 7.4.1 Ambition ‘network formation’ 200 7.4.2 Ambition ‘exchange and continuation’ 201 7.4.3 Ambition ‘knowledge building’ 202 7.4.4 Ambition ‘actor awareness’ 203 7.4.5 Ambition ‘farmer practices’ 205 7.4.6 Ambition ‘Water provision infrastructure’ 206 8 Spanish action lab – Lower Llobregat river 208 8.1 General characteristics and description of the problem 208 8.2 Start situation 211 8.2.1 The actors and their roles 211 8.2.2 Functioning of the water governance system 215 8.3 Process 223 8.3.1 Representation of the process 223 8.3.2 Evaluation and lessons learned of the process 228 8.3.3 Progress of the process, considerations and points of attention 230 8.4 Achievements by the WaterProtect process 232 8.4.1 Ambition ‘network formation’ 232 8.4.2 Ambition ‘exchange and continuation’ 233 8.4.3 Ambition ‘knowledge building’ 234 8.4.4 Ambition ‘actor awareness’ 235 This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme under grant agreement No. 727450 WATERPROTECT Ref: WaterProtect D2.2 D2.2 Project briefs governance case-studies Version: v1 Page 6 of 239 Date: 31/03/2020 8.4.5 Ambition ‘farmer practices’ 236 8.4.6 Ambition ‘sanitation safety plan’ 237 9 Conclusion 238 This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme under grant agreement No. 727450 WATERPROTECT Ref: WaterProtect D2.2 D2.2 Project briefs governance case-studies Version: v1 Page 7 of 239 Date: 31/03/2020 List of Figures Figure 1: Schematic representation of the water quality problem. .................................................. 12 Figure 2: The actors and their roles. .................................................................................................. 14 Figure 3: Functioning of the water governance system ..................................................................... 15 Figure 4: Legend of visualisation of the process ................................................................................ 17 Figure 5: Methods used by action lab leaders to gather requested information .............................. 18 Figure 6: The water governance framework. ..................................................................................... 19 Figure 7: Summary of the main topics covered by the questionnaire ‘ambitions and objectives’ ... 19 Figure 8: Structure of the excel file that was used to inform the work package leader of new updates concerning the process of the action lab. .......................................................................................... 20 Figure 9: Structure of the excel file that was used to inform the work package leader of new updates concerning the achievements of the action lab. ................................................................................ 20 Figure 10: Questions of the ‘evaluation and reflection’ reporting document ................................... 21 List of Tables Table 1: Timing of different reporting documents ............................................................................ 18 This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme under grant agreement No. 727450 WATERPROTECT Ref: WaterProtect D2.2 D2.2 Project briefs governance case-studies Version: v1 Page 8 of 239 Date: 31/03/2020 List of abbreviations & acronyms ACA