English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Water is anything, but trivial. That observation is easily demonstrated by the intricate, often contested, nature of water use and conservation in Europe, which normally encapsulates operational challenges, intersector disputes and multi-level political expectations. If the traditional forms of water use were typically based on cooperation and mutual understanding (vis-a-vis subsistence irrigation and community water supply), the recent history of water development is more closely associated with large-scale interventions and growing rates of water demand. Mounting environmental pressures make the reconciliation of antagonistic interests even more difficult, especially in areas with relatively low stocks of water and an inadequate institutional organisation. Throughout the 20th century, both the Keynesian and the post-Keynesian phases of water management have tried to develop rational approaches to restore and maintain the integrity of freshwater systems.1 If the Keynesian period was marked by large infrastructure projects and centralised planning, the post-Keynesian blueprint is now characterised by non-structural and more flexible responses. In that context, a succession of plans and regulatory efforts launched by the European Union in the last two decades have attempted to improve the institutional mechanisms for dealing with old and new water management problems. To a great extent, the end result of that salient water policy has been an ‘organised anarchy’ characterised by problematic preferences, unclear technology and fluid participation, whilst the overall trend of resource overuse and the uneven sharing of the environmental impacts remained mostly unchanged (Richardson, 1994). That is why the approval of the Water Framework Directive (WFD) in 2000 – currently in its first cycle of implementation – has been perceived as a promising opportunity to enhance the regulatory capacity of national governments and public agencies, as well as a central tool in the reform of the collective basis of social learning and bring water management in Europe to the 21st century (see Hedelin & Lindh, 2008).

Bringing Water Regulation into the 21st Century: The Implementation of the Water Framework Directive in the Iberian Peninsula