**5. Conclusions**

200 Current Issues of Water Management

among members of the general public. It is not clear to everybody that statehood is being qualitatively reformulated according to a wild interplay between homogenisation and particularisation, which unfolds towards higher levels of business competition, market liberalisation and economic growth (Brenner, 2004). The hegemonic reorganisation of the state according to neoliberal demands constitutes a multifaceted, non-linear and multiscalar process that tends to engulf all areas of social action and, crucially, to reshape socionatural relations according to the political and economic priorities of global markets (see Finlayson et al., 2005). The difficult challenges involved in that progression towards an Europe of interconnected localisms and pervasive market rationality is yet more acute in its semiperipheral countries, such as Portugal and Spain, which are expected to breach the development gap with northern regions whilst also cope with democracy deficits and

Our current assessment of the WFD experience builds upon a previous analysis that identified the overly ambitious goals of the Directive and the (often neglected) need to carefully consider the historico-geographical features of the Douro. The internal contradictions of the new regulatory landscape was then defined as a 'techno-bureaucratic shortcut', which means a tendency to produce superficial adjustments in practices and procedures whilst the overall trend of (bureaucratised and exclusionary) management remains largely unchanged (Ioris, 2008). Based on the points discussed above, it is now possible to further argue here that the 'techno-bureaucratic shortcut' has effectively two main ontological foundations, namely a spatial rigidity and the monotonic categorisation of water management issues. The first source of constraint – spatial rigidity – is related to the static understanding of how ecological and socionatural processes interact and evolve. The Directive has been territorialized (to the catchment scale) by ignoring the constant and perpetual remaking of the catchment's spatial configuration (i.e. the social and socionatural relations that produce space). The new regulation has progressed inflexibly across rigid geographical axes – above all, the nested spheres of governance of the European Union – with limited opportunity for deviating from a priori established management directions. Under the assumption that all Europe requires the same form of water management and regulation, the national state is powerfully inserted in a dialectics of inertia and modernisation that is predetermined by the transnational centres of political power. In that context, the regulatory principles of water management emanate concentrically from the top (the EU apparatus controlled by the stronger groups of interest) to the member states and from that to catchments and locations. The result of this rigid management of water is a pressure for the homogenisation of water management and regulation, which happens, first and foremost, through a narrow set of scientific methodologies typically developed in the northern European countries and reproduced with almost no modifications in Portugal (e.g.

Second, the interpretation of management problems and the formulation of possible solutions have followed the monotonic categories of the new European regulation, in particular the myriad of environmental economics tools that colonise the nucleus of WFD regulation, such as water charges, water markets, and the payment for ecosystem services. Under this quest for technical and operational efficiency local knowledge and the indigenous understanding of the hydrological system are being rapidly lost. The

growing environmental threats.

Bordalo et al., 2006).

This brief examination of the local experience of water institutional reforms in the Douro demonstrates the persistent mismatch between regulatory objectives and the actual procedures and relations taking place in different parts of the river basin. The process of water regulatory reforms started in the 1990s, following macroeconomic and politicoinstitutional changes, and was translated into new legislation and increasing calls for an integrated management of catchments. However, it was really the opportunity created by WFD that provided the opportunity to introduce an new, more holistic regulatory rationality. Yet, underneath the new institutions, which include the introduction of water charges, public consultations, preparation of plans and scientific assessments, there is a constant reaffirmation of a centralised and selective basis of dealing with water management questions. Those problems have seriously limited the prospects of the new water institutional framework. Behind the hectic agenda of activities related to the introduction of WFD, it is possible to discover the persistence of old established practices that had marked the history of water management of the European Union in previous decades. Attempts to improve water management in the catchment under the WFD regime have often revived long-established cleavages and the inconsistencies of public policies related to the allocation, use and conservation of shared resources, which have typically privileged certain groups of stakeholders and geographical areas.

It was shown how a rationalistic approach to water problems has prevailed and pervaded most of the recent reforms. The narrow focus on engineering constructions has been replaced by more subtle attempts to manage water through economic incentives and impact mitigation, but without ever addressing the underpinning contradictions of water use and economic development. Although there is a shift from single processes to water regulation, there remains a clear line of continuity between the past and the present of water use and conservation in the Douro. If WFD helps to draw attention to water problems and mobilises private and public resources, at the same time it unravels silent

Bringing Water Regulation into the 21st Century:

ISBN 972-99717-0-6, Porto, Portugal.

pp. 413-429, ISSN 0015-1920.

25.05.2005, Available from

Portugal.

**7. References** 

The Implementation of the Water Framework Directive in the Iberian Peninsula 203

Alves, J.F. (2005). *Águas do Douro e Paiva S.A.: Dez Anos 1995-2005*, Águas do Douro e Paiva,

Amador, J. (2003). The Path Towards Economic and Monetary Integration: The Portuguese

Ambiente Online. (2005). Águas de Portugal Caminha para Abertura de Capital a Privados,

Amorim, A.A. & Pinto, J.N. (2001). *Porto d'Agoa: Serviços Municipalizados de Águas e* 

Azevedo, J. (Ed.). (1998). *Entre Duas Margens: Douro Internacional*, Tipografia Guerra, Viseu,

Barreira, A. (2003). La participación pública en la Directiva Marco del Agua: Implicaciones

Bateira, J. & Ferreira, L.V. (2002). Questioning EU Cohesion Policy in Portugal: A Complex

Bordalo, A.A.: Teixeira, R. & Wiebe, W. (2006). A Water Quality Index Applied to an

*Management*, Vol.38, No.6, (December 2006), pp. 910-920, ISSN 0364-152X. Brenner, N. (2004). *New State Spaces: Urban Governance and the Rescaling of Statehood*, Oxford

Brito, A.G.; Costa, S.; Almeida, J.; Nogueira, R. & Ramos, L. (2008). A Reforma Institucional

CCDR-N. (2000). *Atlas Ecológico do Rio Douro: Divisão em Troços Ecológicos do Rio*, CCDR-N & Junta de Castilla y León, ISBN 972-734-236-1, Porto, Portugal & Valladolid, Spain. CCDR-N. (2006). *Norte 2015: Competitividade e Desenvolvimento: Uma Visão Estratégica*,

CCDR-N. (2007). *Programa Operacional Regional do Norte 2007-2013*, Comissão de Coordenação e Desenvolvimento Regional do Norte, Porto, Portugal. CNA. (2006). A Água e a Agricultura: Novas Realidades. *Voz da Terra*, Vol.49, (October

Conca, K. (2006). *Governing Water: Contentions Transnational Politics and Global Institution Building*, MIT Press, ISBN 0-262-53273-5, Cambridge, USA & London, UK. Correia, F.N. (2000). O Planeamento dos Recursos Hídricos como Instrumento da Política de Gestão de Água. *Recursos Hídricos* Vol.21, No.1, pp. 5-12, ISSN 0870-1741. Cristovão, A. (2006). Douro-Duero: Em Busca de Caminhos para o Desenvolvimento

*Rios: Memória, Cultura e Porvir*, Zamorra, Spain, April 2006.

para la Península Ibérica, *Proceedings of II Congreso Ibérico sobre Gestión y* 

Systems Approach. *European Urban and Regional Studies*, Vol.9, No.4, (October

International Shared River Basin: The Case of the Douro River. *Environmental* 

para a Gestão da Água em Portugal: As Administrações de Região Hidrográfica, *Proceedings of VI Congreso Ibérico sobre Gestión y Planificación del Agua*, Vitoria-

Comissão de Coordenação e Desenvolvimento Regional do Norte, Porto, Portugal.

Transfronteiriço, *Proceedings of the Congresso em Homenagem ao Douro/Duero e Seus* 

http://www.ambienteonline.pt/noticias/detalhes.php?id=2597.

*Planificación del Agua*, Porto, November 2000.

University Press, ISBN 978-0-199-27005-7, Oxford, UK.

2002), pp. 297-314, ISSN 0969-7764.

Gasteiz, Spain, December 2008.

November), pp. 33-44, ISSN 0870-5356.

*Saneamento do Porto*, ISEP, ISBN 972-953-43-2-2, Porto, Portugal.

Experience. *Finance a Uver - Czech Journal of Economics and Finance*, Vol. 53, No.9-10,

conflicts, creates competition and not necessarily facilitates the participation of the weaker social groups. This paradox is not resolved within the water regulatory framework only, but requires broader political basis for dealing with shared problems. If in the past, public investments were in water infrastructure, the current top-down approaches to water management basically reproduce this engineering-based model of development and management, without questioning the causes of environmental degradation and the main beneficiaries. Under WFD, water is emerging (or re-emerging) as a locus of political disputes involving a myriad of stakeholder groups and spatial relations. The Douro is an emblematic example of how water management should be understood as not only a technical and economic matter, but also directly related to political questions of social exclusion. What is still lacking is a genuinely innovative way of dealing with water problems, one that resolves the uneven balance of power between spatial areas and social groups, as well as incorporates traditional wisdom and the contribution of local people in the development of innovative solutions to old and new water management challenges. Unless social differences and the reproduction of social inequalities are addressed, water management problems will remain unchanged.

The ultimate result is that, notwithstanding legal and discursive improvements, the longterm causes of water problems – namely, political pressures for maximising the economic outcomes and minimising the investments in social equity and environmental conservation – have been left out of the process of regulatory change. The limited availability of long-term monitoring data and detailed technical studies have contributed to reinforce the two fundamental hindrances of the regulatory regime under WFD (namely, spatial rigidity and monotonic categorisation of problems), leading to an evasion of references about the political origins and the socioeconomic consequences of environmental impacts. In the end, WFD remains a contested experience of environmental regulation that oscillates between attempts to commodify nature (e.g. bulk water charges, valoration of ecosystem services, calculation of disproportionate costs) and the affirmation of techno-bureaucratic mechanisms of law enforcement (i.e. that neglect the demands and needs of large proportion of water stakeholders). The asymmetry of political power also operates in the interstices of the regulation, given that the water reforms promoted through WFD have served to implement a particular worldview and serve specific interests under a universalising discourse and a naturalisation of hegemonic agendas. On the other hand, the imposition of techno-bureaucratic approaches to water management has prompted the emergence of various forms of opposition, either at the local level or in coordination with other national and international forms of contestation (as the criticism of water privatisation and the campaigns against the new dams in the Upper Douro). The success of the next stages of the implementation of WFD will depend on the ability to perceive the broader socionatural complexity of water management, the pursuit of effective forms of social inclusion and a more equal balance of negotiation power.

### **6. Acknowledgements**

The author warmly thanks the interviewees in Portugal and Spain, the University of Porto for the logistical assistance and the financial support received from The Carnegie Trust for the Universities of Scotland.
