Is the EU WFD suitable to support IWRM planning in non-European countries? Lessons learnt from the introduction of IWRM and River Basin Management in Mongolia

Environmental Science and Policy 75 (2017) 28–37

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Environmental Science and Policy journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/envsci

Is the EU WFD suitable to support IWRM planning in non-European countries? Lessons learnt from the introduction of IWRM and River Basin Management in Mongolia

MARK

⁎

Sonja Heldta, , Jean Carlo Rodríguez-de-Franciscob, Ines Dombrowskyb, Christian K. Feldc, Daniel Karthed,e a

Department of Urban Water & Waste Management, University of Duisburg-Essen, Germany German Development Institute—DIE, Bonn, Germany Department Aquatic Ecology, University of Duisburg-Essen, Germany d Department Aquatic Ecosystem Analysis and Management, Helmholtz, Center for Environmental Research, Magdeburg, Germany e Environmental Engineering Section, German-Mongolian Institute of Resources and Technology (GMIT), Nalaikh, Mongolia b c

A R T I C L E I N F O

A B S T R A C T

Keywords: European Water Framework Directive (EU WFD) IWRM Dublin Principles River Basin Management Transition countries Transferability of European law to other contexts

The Water Framework Directive (EU WFD, 2000/60EC, European Commission, 2000) is a comprehensive tool for water management taking Europe’s diverse national and local policy contexts into account. This has positioned the EU WFD as a potential tool to enhance the implementation of the globally-promoted integrated water resources management concept (IWRM) in developing and transition countries that to date lack comparable regulations. Using the case of Mongolia, a country that has shown interest in using aspects of the EU WFD for implementing its IWRM concept, we will discuss the extent to which the EU WFD also provides a framework for IWRM outside Europe. We find that the EU WFD may provide guidance for the implementation of ecosystem-based River Basin Management (RBM) within an existing national IWRM concept, in terms of public participation and in terms of economic analysis. However, the application of concepts EU WFD is easier if strong political will, good monitoring capacities and a legislative backbone covering key IWRM principles and the capacity for enforcement are in place. Also, the EU-WFD does not provide guidance in terms of water-related issues that are e.g. addressing gender, poverty and capacity development. Thus, the EU WFD cannot serve as a blueprint, as it requires adaptation to the different socio-economic, cultural and political contexts of the implementing country and it does not inform all aspects of IWRM.

1. Introduction With a deepening water crisis in many regions of the world and more specifically in water-scarce developing and transition countries, the need for more efficient and integrated water management concepts has been widely acknowledged by scientists, water managers and political decision-makers (Antunes et al., 2009). Over the past two decades, Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) has emerged as one of the leading water management concepts worldwide (Beveridge and Monsees, 2012; Ibisch et al., 2016; Leidel et al., 2012; Richter et al., 2013) that has been particularly promoted by international organisations in developing and transition countries (Borchardt et al., 2013; Saravanan et al., 2009). The GWP (2000) defines IWRM as a process of “coordinated development and management of water, land and related resources in order to maximise economic and social welfare

⁎

Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected] (S. Heldt).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2017.05.009 Received 31 January 2017; Received in revised form 16 May 2017; Accepted 17 May 2017 1462-9011/ © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

in an equitable manner without compromising the sustainability of vital ecosystems”. According to the four 1992 Dublin Principles, it entails (1) treating water as finite and vulnerable resource, (2) stakeholder participation at all levels, recognizing (3) the role of women in water management and (4) water as an economic good (ICWE, 1992). The IWRM concept is also often perceived as entailing the river basin as management unit, and using river basin organisations as platform for public participation and dialogue. IWRM is a broad general framework that requires case-specific adaptation for implementation in different settings (GWP 2009; Snellen and Schrevel, 2004). Its flexibility enables IWRM to leave space for many different types of approaches at the operational level (Heldt, 2014; Mitchell, 2004). At the same time, the concept’s broadness is perceived as a disadvantage, because decision-makers struggle to develop clear implementation strategies (Beveridge and Monsees,

Environmental Science and Policy 75 (2017) 28–37

S. Heldt et al.

In summary, as IWRM is lacking clear guidelines (GWP, 2009; Heldt, 2014; Mitchell, 2004; Snellen and Schrevel, 2004), many countries struggle with the implementation of IWRM (Beveridge and Monsees, 2012; Biswas, 2008; Hering and Ingold, 2012; Snellen and Schrevel, 2004; Stalnacke and Gooch, 2010) and are considering best practice examples from Western countries as guidelines, e.g. the EU WFD (Benson et al., 2012; Beveridge and Monsees, 2012; Gouldson et al., 2008). Despite criticism (e.g. Hering et al., 2010; Prato et al., 2014; UBA, 2012, 2017), the EU WFD can be seen as a success in Europe, thanks to its clear guidelines for all member states. Therefore, the question arises, if the EU WFD may be transferable as a guideline to promote the implementation of IWRM in non-EU countries. While Beveridge and Monsees (2012) provided a “comparative review of the literature on the institutional challenges and politics of IWRM, in relation to the EU's Water Framework Directive” and Rahaman et al. (2004) points out “seven mismatches” between the EU WFD and IWRM, this paper focuses on an empirical example by analysing whether the EU WFD may support IWRM planning considering the “context-specific conditions” (Beveridge and Monsees, 2012) in Mongolia, where the EU WFD has stirred interest for implementing its IWRM concept. To do so, the following section two introduces the legal framework for water resources management in Mongolia in order to set the stage. Section three then presents a comparison of water-related ecological, economical and social issues in Europe and Mongolia. Based on this, in section four, the potentials and limitations of the EU WFD as a guideline to promote the implementation of IWRM in general and in Mongolia particular are discussed, using the Dublin principles as a yardstick. To answer the research question, the results will be discussed in section five and conclusions are drawn in section six.

2012; Biswas, 2008; Hering and Ingold, 2012; Snellen and Schrevel, 2004; Stalnacke and Gooch, 2010). Furthermore, the integration of the IWRM into national policies is a highly political task and requires significant adjustments at the level of national water policies and laws (Giordano and Shah, 2014; Saravanan et al., 2009). In order to overcome difficulties with the IWRM concept, policymakers in some developing and transition countries, including Mongolia, have shown interest in the European Water Framework Directive (2000/60EC, European Commission 2000), further referred to as EU WFD, as a more specific (framework) guideline for certain aspects of water management. This is not very surprising as, on the one hand, the EU WFD has been presented by some authors as “a blueprint for IWRM” that other countries and “the rest of the world” can use in their water management efforts (Gouldson et al., 2008). On the other hand, IWRM and the EU WFD share the objective of addressing water management challenges at the river basin scale (Beveridge and Monsees, 2012). Benson et al. (2012) therefore characterized the EU as a “fertile source for policy-makers outside Europe” especially in an environmental context, but simultaneously emphasizing - along the lines of Beveridge and Monsees (2012) - a deliberative exchange process that enables two-way learning. Despite its criticisms at EU and international level (e.g., too ambitious (Hering et al., 2010), the debate of the one-out-all-out principle (Prato et al., 2014), delayed implementation (UBA, 2012), little achievements of good status for EU waters (Voulvoulis et al., 2017), the EU WFD is generally considered a success story. Despite the high range of political-cultural, institutional and environmental contexts prevailing in the member states, only four member states failed to develop river basin management plans (RBMPs) before the first deadline set by the EU WFD in 2009 (Jager et al., 2016). So far, there have been two kinds of serious attempts to transfer the EU WFD to non-EU countries: (1) in case of candidate countries like Turkey (Sumer and Muluk, 2011; ORSAM, 2011) or (2) if the respective country is part of a trans-national river basin that is partly located on EU territory, for instance in the Danube Basin (Bosnia-Herzegovina, Moldavia, Montenegro, Serbia and the Ukraine) (Haefner, 2016; www.icpdr.org). Therefore, the clear guidelines of the EU WFD as well as its success within the EU and experiences in candidate and neighbouring countries may also support transition and developing countries to initiate the implementation of their own IWRM concepts. Even though the EU WFD entered into force and is obligatory in the entire European Union, it was essentially developed by the “old” member states. Despite its obligatory character, a part of the motivation for the newer (and less wealthy) member states derived from financial support and expert advice provided to foster the directive’s implementation. In the Mongolian case, several factors promoted the consideration of IWRM and Mongolian interest in the EU WFD as a potential blueprint. Over the past three decades, the country’s transition from socialism into a market-based economy and a mining-based economic boom in the early 21st century coincided with massive water-related challenges: rising water consumption and pollution on the one hand, unclear water policies and a poor state of water infrastructures on the other hand (Karthe et al., 2015a). The resulting consequences for Mongolia’s unique aquatic ecosystems (Hofmann et al., 2015a; Kaus et al., 2016) further contributed to the national government’s willingness to search for proven strategies for their effective protection. At the same time, several international donor organisations promoted integrated water resources management both at the regional and national scale (Dombrowsky et al., 2014b; Houdret et al., 2014). Over the past decade, several water management and water research projects were funded by European donors including the Dutch, German and Swiss governments. Even though all of these projects made a point that water resources management must be adapted to the specific conditions of Mongolia, Mongolian authorities frequently expressed their interest in learning from the European experience in general and the EU WFD in particular, which they considered a “best practice” example.

2. The Mongolian legal framework for water As the way in which IWRM and its four underlying Dublin principles is ideally interpreted and implemented in a country depends not only on the locally prevailing environmental sustainability, economic status and social equity (Cooper, 2012), but also on existing political structures, regulations and institutional systems (e.g. Allouche, 2016; Beveridge and Monsees, 2012), this section is analysing Mongolia’s current water policy. The adoption of IWRM in Mongolia has been driven by the interest of Mongolian actors involved in the water sector, international donors and NGOs (Houdret et al., 2014). Dutch, German and Swiss development cooperation plus the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and the Global Water Partnership (GWP) have been especially active in policy lobbying for IWRM and on supporting River Basin Management in different basins throughout Mongolia (Horlemann and Dombrowsky, 2012). However, the form and content of the legal framework for water management has mainly been strongly influenced by the Mongolia’s political, economic and environmental transition. Since the breakdown of the socialist regime and centrally planned economy in 1990, Mongolia has moved to a democratic multi-party system and a market-based economy (Janzen, 2012). Its state of transition, however, gives Mongolia a dynamic character with frequent changes in regulations, institutions, personnel, political priorities and mandates. In Mongolia, IWRM as management principle was first introduced in the Water Law of 2004. However, in 2012 several new laws were adopted pertaining to water and the environment which fundamentally changed the legal basis for water management (Houdret et al., 2014; Dombrowsky et al., 2014a). The new Water Law (2012) redefines roles and responsibilities in water management among the national and subnational levels and envisions inter alia the setup of River Basin Authorities (RBAs) and River Basin Councils (RBCs). In the Water Law, water resources are defined as state property and decoupled from land ownership. In addition, new laws on natural resource use and pollution set fees for natural resource use and water pollution respectively. The Law on Utilization of Urban Settlement’s Water Supply and Sewerage 29

Environmental Science and Policy 75 (2017) 28–37

S. Heldt et al.

Fig. 1. Major river and lake basins of Mongolia.

3. Country-specific contexts: water-related challenges in Mongolia vs. Europe

(2012) builds the basis for water supply and sanitation services (Houdret et al., 2014; Karthe et al., 2015a). Furthermore, the National Water Program, originally formulated in 1999 and updated in 2010 is a central strategy document aiming at the practical implementation of water management (Sigel et al., 2012). Sustainable and integrated water management forms part of Mongolia’s national development agenda, because of the relevance of water for improving the living conditions of people in both urban and rural areas (Heldt, 2014; Karthe et al., 2015a). Decentralization has been a key feature of the ongoing reform process in Mongolia and shifted the former top-down governance to a multi-level system. In the context of water governance, such shift partially decentralized water management to the provincial level and has led to the promotion of coordination bodies at national and at river basin level. The National Water Committee, established in 2000, is the forum where, among other functions (see Decree 75/2012), intersectoral coordination of water issues is to occur. At river basin level, 25 River Basin Authorities (RBAs) have been created to coordinate water issues for the 29 declared river basins in Mongolia (Fig. 1). RBAs are inter alia responsible for the formulation of RBMPs in consultation with River Basin Councils (RBCs) in which grassroots stakeholder participation is envisioned. However, the actual power of RBAs remains weak so far (Dombrowsky et al., 2014b; Houdret et al., 2014). Reasons include a lack of financial and staff capacities and a serious shortage of data to support decision-making processes (Karthe et al., 2015b; Rodríguez de Francisco et al., 2017). In addition, as current research of the authors shows there are partly overlapping competences between RBAs and Environmental Agencies at province (Aimag) level and competition for resources among these two bodies. In summary, section two showed that Mongolia already has put effort in identifying national IWRM objectives embracing RBM, safe water supply and sanitation, decentralisation, participation as well as the protection of existing water resources. These objectives are addressed in the quite ambitious water policy with the aim to establish multi-level and sectoral integration. Due to the influence of collaborations with foreign actors from Europe, the EU WFD approach is not a totally new concept.

Additional to the existing political structures, regulations and institutional systems presented in section two, section three is focussing on the analysis of water-related challenges (a) in Mongolia’s countryspecific context and (b) in relation to the EU in order to assess the transferability of the EU WFD as well as possible experiences with comparable issues. As most important basis article 5 of the EU WFD requires, besides an economic analysis, information on hydrogeological “characteristics” of the water bodies (hydroclimatic conditions; surface and groundwater quality; state of aquatic ecosystems) and “a review of the impact of human activity on the status of surface waters and on groundwater” (main anthropogenic pressures; rural and urban water management) (see Article 5, EU WFD). Therefore, these criteria are used as a basis for the comparison of water-related challenges in Mongolia and the corresponding situation in Europe (Table 1). As described in Table 1, water problems in Mongolia are not too different from those found in at least some parts of Europe. In particular, some new member states resemble Mongolia more closely than the Western European nations (Table 1). For example, urban water management challenges in Mongolia resemble those in Romania, where water treatment and sanitation deficits are yet to be overcome. While this indicates that these EU member states may have a similar focus in their water policy, it does not necessarily mean, that there are experiences with using the EU WFD to address these comparable issues. RBMPs are compulsory in both the EU WFD and the Mongolian water policy. For Europe, this means biological and physico-chemical assessment and monitoring of about 120,000 individual water bodies. Programmes of Measures (PoM) need to be set up describing water management necessities and options for each individual water body, to achieve good ecological status or potential (EEA, 2012). This presupposes a good data base and requires huge investments into management and restoration of Europe’s waters. Even in Europe, this process has been perceived as highly bureaucratic, at risk to get lost in complexity (EEB, 2010). For example, the development of RBMPs requires a huge amount of data in line with the new demands on data quality (Birk 30

Environmental Science and Policy 75 (2017) 28–37

S. Heldt et al.

Table 1 Overview on water-related challenges in Mongolia and the corresponding situation in Europe.

Hydroclimatic conditions

Urban Water Management

Rural Water management

Surface and Groundwater Quality

State of Aquatic Ecosystems

Main Anthropogenic Pressures

Mongolia

Corresponding situation in Europe

Highly continental climate with limited water availability, very high evapotranspiration and extremely cold winter temperatures which require adapted technical solutions for water management (Hülsmann et al., 2015; Karthe et al., 2016). Population in the city centres is connected to obsolete central water supply and sanitation systems; population in peripheral areas has no safe water supply and access to sanitation (approximately half of Mongolia’s population) (Karthe et al., 2016). 42.5% of Mongolia’s population lives in rural areas (MEGD, 2012) where safe drinking water supply and waste water disposal systems are typically not available or very restricted. Only 25% have access to improved sanitation and 39.2% access to save drinking water (UNDP and UNICEF, 2009). Water quality degradations are found near/downstream of urban areas (nutrients), industrial and mining areas (heavy metals) and in rural areas characterized by high livestock densities (Hartwig et al., 2012; Hofmann et al., 2015b; Karthe et al., 2015a; Pfeiffer et al., 2015). Microbiological contamination of drinking water is a potential public health concern (Karthe et al., 2012). Generally, most surface water bodies have a good ecological status, albeit with threats resulting from water quality impairments and a desiccation trend in some regions (Karthe et al., 2015a) as well as increasing pressures resulting from fishing (Kaus et al., 2016). Point pollution of surface water bodies from insufficiently treated urban and industrial waste water (Hofmann et al. 2011; Karthe et al. 2016); Pollution of ground and surface water from latrines and inappropriate dump sites (Karthe et al., 2012, 2016; Uddin et al., 2014); Significant water abstractions for irrigation and mining activities (Hofmann et al., 2010); Influx of sediments and toxic substances due to mining operations (Hofmann et al., 2010; Pfeiffer et al., 2015; Thorslund et al., 2012); River bank erosion, fine sediment and diffuse nutrient/pathogen release due to extensive livestock farming along river banks (Hartwig et al., 2012; Theuring et al., 2013); Land use change, and in particular forest losses, with profound impacts on regional hydrological cycles (Minderlein & Menzel, 2015; Karthe et al., 2015a). Since 2004, RBM and IWRM have been progressively embraced as national strategies for water resources management, while the Ministry of Environment has been upgraded to one of four strategic ministries; substantial institutional reforms, unclear/overlapping responsibilities and a lack of budget and capacities have been obstacles to the implementation of IWRM (Houdret et al., 2014; Karthe et al., 2015a).

Experiences with cold climates exist from Scandinavia, while continental climate conditions (with low precipitation and high evaporation rates) are found in eastern and particularly southeastern Europe. In Romania approximately less than 20% of the urban population has no connection to safe drinking water sources in their houses. In some urban areas in eastern Europe, the percentage of households that have access to safe sanitation is only 60% (WHO, 2010). 23% of the EU’s population lives in rural areas; in parts of the Eastern EU (especially Romania), less than 20% of the rural population have access to safe drinking water or sanitation (WHO 2010).

• • • • •

Surface water quality in major rivers has improved over the past few decades; currently, the highest portion of surface water bodies with a poor chemical status can be found in the north of France and Sweden (www.eea.europa.eu).

On average less than half of the European water bodies have a ‘good ecological status’, with a much better picture for Scandinavia (www.eea.europa.eu). Point pollution from insufficiently treated waste water (e.g. Romania, Bulgaria or Spain); Diffuse nutrient emission by settlements and agriculture (especially livestock farming) (e.g. Germany, Italy, Spain or Estonia); Chemical (especially heavy metals) and ecological degradation due to intensive mining (e.g. Poland, Slovakia or Hungary) (http://ec.europa.eu/).

•

Water governance framework

Since 2000, the European Water Framework Directive represents a binding legislation for sustainable water management in Europe. However, as explained in Section 4 it is mainly geared towards the ecological status of water bodies and supplemented by several additional directives.

infrastructure, low employment rates, health (Porsche-Ludwig et al., 2013) and especially corruption (Fritz, 2007; Quah, 2006; Transparency International, 2012) and thus lacking capacity to implement a comprehensive monitoring system and decentralized water resources management. In Europe, member states with a weak socio-economic background can get expert or financial support to enforce European policy. At the same time, the EU is controlling the enforcement of European laws by suing member states in case of disregard. For example, Germany has recently been accused for not implementing the Nitrate Directive (EC, 2016). As stated in the introduction, the EU WFD is generally seen as a success in Europe (Jager et al., 2016), but even for the most highly developed member states the implementation of the EU WFD is an ambitious task (e.g. Hering et al., 2010; Jager et al., 2016; Voulvoulis et al., 2017). In contrast, non-EU countries like Mongolia, which are which are not supported by the EU to achieve and monitor progress regarding the state of water bodies, have to overcome a huge barrier by a very strong political will to sustainably apply and enforce the EU WFD guidelines on their own.

et al., 2012). Besides the collection of these data, the need for sophisticated data management and assessment strategies constitute further challenges. In Mongolia, data scarcity is a serious problem for IWRM planning. Due to Mongolia’s small population (about 3 million inhabitants), the workforce and the number of water management experts is limited, while the size of the country (1.5 million km2) and limited infrastructures outside major cities make monitoring efforts difficult (Karthe et al., 2015b). This situation is further aggravated by a lack of budget for environmental monitoring and measure implementation. One might argue that strict metrics and complex methodologies further complicate the river basin management planning. Moreover, the standalone application of the EU WFD as a guideline runs the risk of neglecting other important objectives of IWRM, such as social aspects, participation and capacity development, which are prerequisites for self-sustained and integrated water management. Like in e.g. Finland, Mongolia’s river basins are marked by large rural territories, what results in comparable near-natural water bodies that are already in a good ecological status. Thus, in contrast to the EU, anthropogenic pressures in Mongolia often act as single and distinct stressors. For example, the identification of pollution sources and their impact on the environment is less complex and therefore simplifying the derivation of appropriate assessment, monitoring and countermeasures as compared to European multi-stressor settings. But different to Finland, Mongolia is facing urgent problems related to poverty,

4. The EU WFD as a concept for IWRM implementation in Mongolia: potentials and limitations To create a general basis for the assessment of transferability of the 31

Environmental Science and Policy 75 (2017) 28–37

S. Heldt et al.

While the IWRM approach was developed as a response to the international water crisis (Snellen and Schrevel, 2004), the EU WFD was adopted to unify the highly fragmented European water policies (Rahaman et al., 2004). Furthermore, IWRM is understood as a nonlegal approach to comprehensively manage all issues related to water in a cross-sectoral way. In contrast to this, the EU WFD is one legal directive concerned with the ecosystem-based protection of European water resources embraced in the sovereign legislative framework of the EU. Consequently, these formal differences also entail different requirements concerning focal points in principles and objectives (Heldt, 2014). The basic philosophy of IWRM constitutes a holistic consideration of the four Dublin Principles. For EU member states, the EU WFD is not meant to implement IWRM but to fulfil its task to focus on environmental issues and economic tools as well as incorporating key requirements of the Aarhus Convention on access to information and public participation in decision-making (Article 14, EU WFD; (De Stefano, 2010; Richter et al., 2013). In view of the whole picture of European legislation, the EU WFD is supported by a supplemental set of EU legislations (e.g.: EU Gender Equality Legislation (EC, 2008); the Habitats Directive (85/337/EC); the Birds Directive 2009/147/EC; the Urban Water Treatment Directive (91/271/EEC; the Drinking Water Directive (98/83/EC) or the Nitrate directive (91/667/EEC)). Although the implementation of IWRM is not explicitly addressed by the EU, these additional regulations improve the coverage of the four Dublin Principles (Heldt, 2014) and even add further aspects (Fig. 2). As already stated, the four Dublin Principles are underlying the basic philosophy of IWRM and thus provide valid criteria for the assessment of IWRM concepts. To get a more detailed analysis, the four principles will be used as criteria for a comparison between the EU WFD and the Mongolian water policy in order to identify key potentials and limitations for transferring the EU WFD as guidelines for IWRM to Mongolia. Tables 2–5 describe the relation between the EU WFD and current IWRM legislation in Mongolia in terms of the four Dublin Principles (Heldt, 2014) and assess potentials and limitations for applying the EU WFD in Mongolia.

knowledge - also from Europe - was introduced in the development of the national IWRM concept. The WFD frames the socio-ecological context of river basin management and economic assessment. For example, the regulations prohibiting the deterioration of ecological states proved to be effective measures for a sustainable protection of water resources in Europe. Since its enactment in 2000, a huge pool of methods has been developed and implemented in national projects in Europe on how to fulfil the requirements of the EU WFD. Thus, scientific findings and practical experiences are available for a wide range of socio-economic, biophysical and geographical contexts. Thus, the research project on “Integrated Water Management in Central Asia: Model Region Mongolia” project (IWRM MoMo) (Karthe et al., 2015a, 2015b) tried to answer the question if RBM according to the EU WFD approaches is transferable to Mongolia to support planning and implementation of IWRM focussing on Dublin Principles 1 and 2. At the start of the project, legal standards for environmental monitoring in Mongolia were poorly developed and largely based on “inherited” Soviet-era standards. Therefore, established European metrics were used in the context of the IWRM MoMo project, including hydrological, hydromorphological and land use information (Hülsmann et al., 2015; Karthe et al., 2013; Priess et al., 2015). In addition, a systematic water quality assessment with a focus on nutrients and heavy metals (Hofmann et al., 2010, 2011, 2015b) and an assessment of ecosystem status based on different bioindicators were conducted (Hofmann et al., 2015a; Karthe et al., 2015a, 2016). The findings were synthesized in a typology of surface water bodies according to the EU WFD (Hofmann et al., 2015a). These studies support the implementation of several aspects of Dublin Principle 1. This was complemented by the analysis of the institutional structures of water management (Dombrowsky et al. 2014a, 2014b; Horlemann and Dombrowsky, 2012; Houdret et al., 2014). The River Basin Management Plan for the Kharaa is currently under development, integrating both the Mongolian guidelines and results of the IWRM MoMo project (Heldt, 2014; Hofmann et al., 2015a; Karthe et al., 2015a). The insights gained from the institutional analysis and from observing the RMBP process, provide a basic understanding to what extent Dublin Principle 2 is being applied in Mongolia. Table 6 is summarizing the findings of the comparison between the EU WFD and Mongolian water policies by highlighting actual potentials of the EU WFD to support IWRM planning in Mongolia. In sum, section four show that the EU WFD also provides opportunities for improving the implementation of IWRM with respect to Dublin Principle 1 and 2 and potentially also to Dublin Principle 4 (Table 6) by providing guidelines concerning aquatic ecology, (formal) participation and economic principles (water pricing, pollution fees etc.). However, the standalone application of the EU WFD as a guideline runs the risk of neglecting other important objectives of IWRM, such as social aspects, (active public) participation and capacity development, which are prerequisites for self-sustained and integrated water management.

4.2. Lessons learnt from the IWRM MoMo project

5. Discussion

The WFD frames the socio-ecological context of river basin management and economic assessment. For example, the regulations prohibiting the deterioration of ecological states proved to be effective measures for a sustainable protection of water resources in Europe. Since its enactment in 2000, a huge pool of methods has been developed and implemented in national projects in Europe on how to fulfil the requirements of the EU WFD. Thus, scientific findings and practical experiences are available for a wide range of socio-economic, biophysical and geographical contexts. As stated before (see Section 2), in the recent past, several foreign actors have promoted the implementation of IWRM and RBM in Mongolia by either conducting research projects, supporting the development of RBMPs or providing financial support. Therefore, a lot of

Beveridge and Monsees (2012) concluded their comparative literature review on the possibility of “Bridging parallel discourses of IWRM […] in developing and developed countries” with the statement that “‘Global IWRM’ and the EU’s WFD are, to a great extent, distinct discourses” and Rahaman et al. (2004) identified “seven mismatches” the EU WFD lacks in order to enable the implementation of IWRM, which regard gender awareness, integration between different sectors, decentralisation, participation of stakeholders, focus on poverty, human-oriented management as well as the development of responsibilities at lowest level. Indeed, the EU WFD neither addresses gender, social and demographic issues nor poverty, capacity development or comprehensive cross-sectoral implementation - aspects which are particularly important in developing and transition countries.

EU WFD and implementation experiences from the member states in section two and three Mongolia’s water policy and water-related challenges have been presented and, in the latter case, compared to conditions in Europe. Complementary, section four will present a more detailed analysation on how (a) the EU WFD could support IWRM planning and implementation in Mongolia by comparing both, the EU WFD and Mongolia’s water policy to the Dublin Principles and (b) the empirical lessons learnt from a research project on “Integrated Water Management in Central Asia: Model Region Mongolia” project (IWRM MoMo) (Karthe et al., 2015a, 2015b). 4.1. EU WFD and Mongolia’s water policy in relation to IWRM using the 4 Dublin principles as a yardstick

32

Environmental Science and Policy 75 (2017) 28–37

S. Heldt et al.

Fig. 2. Comparison of the political and legislative framework for integrated water management in the EU and the aspects of the four Dublin Principles (DPs), considering the EU WFD on its own and integrated in its backbone of EU-legislation.

However, the country-specific empirical findings presented in this paper, show both opportunities and limitations of the EU WFD as a blueprint for IWRM implementation in transition and developing countries, such as Mongolia. Also, it should be reintegrated that the central objective of the EU WFD, i.e. to reach and maintain a “good ecological status” for all water bodies, has not the intention to embrace all principles of IWRM; it is only one act amongst others in the

comprehensive legislative backbone of the EU (Heldt, 2014). Thus, it may not be applicable to all water challenges in water-scarce developing and transition countries that are struggling to implement IWRM. The analysis also shows that Mongolia’s water policy is already referring to the content of the four Dublin Principles in its own regulatory context, for example, by emphasizing the protection of Mongolia’s water resources’ ecological status. Main limitations, how-

Table 2 The First Dublin Principle in the EU WFD and Mongolian water policy. Water should be treated as a finite and vulnerable resource that is essential to sustain life, development and the environment. Mongolian water policy: The Mongolian Water Law defines water as state property and grants its citizens “the right to enjoy a healthy and safe environment that is protected against pollution and ecological imbalance”. The National Water Resource Plan (MEGD, 2012) gathered data about environmental and socio- economic preconditions related to water. Besides the creation of river basin authorities and the guidelines for developing river basin management plans, a clear implementation strategy is not yet available.

EU WFD: The EU WFD partly refers to this principle as it aims to maintain water resources with a good status/potential and prevent further (ecological and chemical) deterioration of surface waters and (chemical and quantitative) deterioration of groundwater resources (Article 11, EU WFD). In this way, the EU WFD attempts to ensure the sufficient provision of good quality water to meet the future demand of its population (Preamble 24, EU WFD). A main objective is to enhance the status of aquatic and water dependent terrestrial ecosystems by promoting a responsible water use and reducing pollution. The links between socio-economic developments and water management as well as the integration of other important sectors (e.g. agriculture or energy) are addressed only partially/indirectly. Potentials to use the EU WFD as support for IWRM planning in Mongolia:

to the different country-specific preconditions, the European water sector has developed a remarkable methodological toolbox in various national projects on how to monitor, • Due assess and achieve the “good ecological status”. water-related challenges and their causes are comparable, an approach combining the EU WFD and the Mongolian water policy could offer guidelines and methods for • Whenever an environmentally-oriented management of water resources that also incorporates socio-economic aspects. Limitations to use the EU WFD as support for IWRM planning in Mongolia: assessment methods and metrics are often lacking simplicity (Hering et al., 2010) and cannot be transferred one to one to other regional contexts. • European supplementary implementation strategies emphasizing on the integration of social components and other sectors, the actual focus of the Mongolian water policies cannot • Without be implemented sufficiently by only applying European water management strategies. • The EU WFD also does not amend itself to managing water scarcity.

33

Environmental Science and Policy 75 (2017) 28–37

S. Heldt et al.

Table 3 The Second Dublin Principle. Water management should be based on a participatory approach, involving users, planners and policy-makers at all levels. Mongolian water policy: The Mongolian IWRM policy addresses public participation in the sense of the second Dublin Principle by the introduction of RBCs. RBCs are designed to act as a platform to encourage multi-stakeholder discussion as well as information and active involvement of public water users. However, in practice, due to lacking resources and funding RBCs have not been set up in all river basin or may be operational. In consequence, public involvement is often still limited or even nonexisting. Water is governed in Mongolia in as multi-level governance process, but with partly overlapping competences and serious coordination challenges.

EU WFD: The EU WFD explicitly values public information and consultation. But active public participation is not explicitly required in the actual implementation process. RBM drafts and background documents have to be made accessible to the public for at least six months before they are finally adopted (Article 14, EU WFD). Due to the framework character of the EU WFD, decentralization and multi-level cooperation are largely left to national implementation. Still, they are indirectly promoted (decision-making processes should be made as locally/regionally as possible). Potentials to use the EU WFD as support for IWRM planning in Mongolia:

EU WFD contains clear guidelines for formal public information and consultation as basis for stakeholder involvement, giving everyone an opportunity to state their claims in • The the development process of the RBMPs, which could be transferred in theory. Limitations to use the EU WFD as support for IWRM planning in Mongolia: Mongolia the main obstacle towards stakeholder participation is not the lack of guidelines, but the lack of funding for RBCs. Maybe the EU WFD approach of making documents • Inavailable to the public before adoption would be more realistic in Mongolia too given the financial constraints, but the CIS Guidance document No. 8 also includes approaches for active participation.

The EU WFD in particular provides clear guidance for ecosystembased RBM, but transferring it to Mongolia also requires additional capacity for an adaption of indicators, metrics and methods to the actual country context as well as the collection of comprehensive environmental and socio-economic data. Opportunities for applying ecosystem-based approaches were demonstrated in the IWRM MoMo project for one Mongolian river basin (Hofmann et al., 2015a; Horlemann and Dombrowsky, 2012; Karthe et al., 2015a). Still, despite including long-term capacity development these processes are mainly promoting the environmental and public participation part of IWRM, while only limited support could be given in terms the economic dimension of IWRM. In addition, while all countries may benefit from EU WFD methodologies, their application will be easier in countries that:

Table 4 The Third Dublin Principle. Women play a central part in the provision, management and safeguarding of water. Mongolian water policy: EU WFD: The Mongolian IWRM The EU WFD does not consider gender issues. policy does not consider Concerns about gender equality are addressed gender issues. by the EU’s supplementary gender legislation. Potentials to use the EU WFD as support for IWRM planning in Mongolia: none Limitations to use the EU WFD as support for IWRM planning in Mongolia: cannot benefit from experiences in the European water sector. • Mongolia However, gender equality in Mongolia is, when compared to other transition and developing countries, relatively high in the water sector (Asian Development Bank and World Bank, 2005; Hawkins, 2007) Gender Inequality Index: 0.325; rank 63 (http://hdr.undp.org/en/composite/GII)). Therefore, this is not a priority.

• already have a well-established legal, governmental and institu-

ever, are gaps in implementation and the lack of capacity for systematic enforcement (Dombrowsky et al., 2014b; Houdret et al., 2014; Karthe et al., 2015b; Rodríguez de Francisco et al., 2017). It is in this regard that the EU WFD may give support to strengthening the operationalization of certain concepts.

• • •

tional structures that facilitate multi-level and sectoral integration in support of country-specific IWRM goals. want to shift focus to environment-based RBM. have strong data monitoring and management mechanisms in place. have a basis to boost those principles of IWRM that are not addressed by the EU WFD itself (e.g. gender equality or poverty

Table 5 The Fourth Dublin Principle. Water has an economic value in all its competing uses and should be recognized as an economic good. Mongolian water policy: The economic aspects of water are addressed by the Law on Natural Resource Use Fees (2012) for water abstraction from water bodies, the Law on Water Pollution Fees (2012) for the discharge of wastewater into water bodies and the Law on Utilization of Urban Settlement’s Water Supply and Sewerage (2012) for water supply and sanitation services. However, formulations are often vague and clear implementation strategies are partly still lacking. Until 2012 there was only a symbolic or even no fee for domestic water use (and thus little incentive to save water). One exception are ‘water kiosks’ in semi-formal and peri-urban areas where there has been a long tradition of selling water by volume at relatively high costs (Sigel et al., 2012). In 2012 a newly established Water Services Regulatory Commission of Mongolia was charged with the development of a water pricing strategy for water services.

EU WFD: The EU WFD regards the enhancement of the ecological status as an investment in future economic benefit. Most importantly, the EU WFD calls for full cost recovery for water services (Article 9, EU WFD), taking also environmental and resource costs into account. Economic analyses are to support the introduction of economic instruments that set incentives for a responsible water use, like adjusted cost recovery systems in both the industrial and the domestic sector (Martin-Ortega, 2012).

Potentials to use the EU WFD as development tool for IWRM in Mongolia: considerations have only recently emerged and are not fully implemented in Mongolia, the strict guidelines for economic analyses and full cost recovery provided by • Astheeconomic EU WFD may be helpful. Limitations to use the EU WFD as development tool for IWRM in Mongolia: of data and non-transparency in parts of the Mongolian water sector are essential obstacles. • AThelacksocialist (no or only nominal water fees) constitute an obstacle for water pricing, particularly with regard to public acceptance. • Vested interestsheritage by industry and mining present obstacles towards charging the full environmental and resources costs of water abstraction and wastewater discharge. •

34

Environmental Science and Policy 75 (2017) 28–37

S. Heldt et al.

Table 6 Overview about the indicated potentials of the EU WFD to act as a guidance for the implementation of IWRM in Mongolia including the findings from section 4.1 and 4.2. Dublin Principle

Potentials of guidance from the EU WFD

1–conservation

Clear guidelines for the development of RBMPs (Annexes, EU WFD) A pool of methods that has been developed and implemented in national projects in Europe taking different country-specific contexts into account. Some of these methods have been tested in applied in Mongolia in the so called IWRM MoMo project e.g.: of water bodies and reference conditions (Hofmann et al., 2015a); • classification of fish and macroinvertebrates (Karthe et al., 2015a; Kaus et al., 2016) • monitoring and mitigation of hydrological, hydromorphological and anthropogenic impact by different land use information (Hülsmann et al., 2015; • assessment Karthe et al., 2013; Priess et al., 2015) to enable the systematic development of RBMPs (Heldt, 2014).

2 – participation

3 – gender equality 4 – economic good

A procedure for formal information and consultation concerning the development of RBMPs (Article 14, EU WFD) and a guidance document for further active participation in RBM (CIS Guidance No. 8) Experiences from the member states with different approaches to promote active participation (Jager et al., 2016). No potentials in the EU WFD Clear guidelines for the considering economic aspects in the development of RBMPs (Annexes 3, EU WFD)

factors (e.g. ecosystems, climate, economic and administrative structures). When keeping these limitations in mind, the EU WFD can certainly can be supporting for Mongolia’s national IWRM policy − but as it does not provide guidance in terms of water-related gender, poverty and capacity development issues it is also not more and not less.

abatement), and have the capacity or support to enforce management measures (e.g. cost recovery mechanisms) and a supporting capacity development concept. However, while member and candidate states that may not fulfil all these points can mitigate these gaps by the available EU support and control, non-EU transition countries like Mongolia are not likely to fulfil all of these points on their own. In general, there are multiple individual solutions for water management and none is a blueprint for governing water resources sustainably (Giordano and Shah, 2014). Thus, the implementation of a sustainable water management concept should not only be designed to meet all the specific approaches of the globally promoted concept of IWRM or the clear guidelines of the EU WFD, but to find most effective solutions adjusted to the country specific requirements and condition (Giordano and Shah, 2014; Varis et al., 2008).

Acknowledgements The results presented in this paper are based on the research and development project “Integrated Water Resources Management in Central Asia: Model Region Mongolia”, funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) in the framework of the FONA (Research for Sustainable Development) initiative (Grants No. 033L003 and 033W016). References

6. Conclusions

Allouche, J., 2016. The birth and spread of IWRM—a case study of global policy diffusion and translation. Water Altern. 9, 412–433. Antunes, P., Kallis, G., Videira, N., Santos, R., 2009. Participation and evaluation for sustainable river basin governance. Ecol. Econ. 68, 931–939. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1016/j.ecolecon.2008.12.004. Asian Development Bank, World Bank, 2005. Mongolia Country Gender Assessment. Asian Development Bank, World Bank, Manila, Philippines. Benson, D., Jordan, A., Huitema, D., 2012. Involving the public in catchment management: an analysis of the scope for learning lessons from abroad. Environ. Pol. Gov. 22, 42–54. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/eet.593. Beveridge, R., Monsees, J., 2012. Bridging parallel discourses of Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM): institutional and political challenges in developing and developed countries. Water Int. 37 (7), 727–743. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/ 02508060.2012.742713. Birk, S., Bonne, W., Borja, A., Brucet, S., Courrat, A., Poikane, S., Solimini, A., van de Bund, W., Zampoukas, N., Hering, D., 2012. Three hundred ways to assess Europe's surface waters: an almost complete overview of biological methods to implement the Water Framework Directive. Ecol. Indic. 18, 31–41. Biswas, A.K., 2008. Integrated water resource manegement: is it working? Int. J. Water Resour. Dev. 24, 5–22. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07900620701871718. Borchardt, D., Bjørnsen, P.K., Bogardi, J.J., Clausen, T.J., Dombrowsky, I., Garduño, H., Jardin, N., Jenkins, A., von Keitz, S., Kfir, R., Krebs, P., Kroiss, H., Leibundgut, C., Mauser, W., Moss, T., Panse, D., Reichert, P., Rekolainen, S., Rudolph, K.U., Rudolph, D.L., Stålnacke, P., Taal, B.M.M., Yang, M., 2013. Message from the Dresden International Conference on integrated water resources management: management of water in a changing world: lessons learnt and innovative perspectives. In: Borchardt, D., Ibisch, R. (Eds.), Integrated Water Resources Management in a Changing World: Lessons Learnt and Innovation Perspectives. IWA Publishing, London, pp. 12–14. Cooper, R., 2012. The potential of MRC to pursue IWRM in the mekong: trade-offs and public participation. In: Öjendal, J., Hansson, S., Hellberg, S. (Eds.), Politics and Development in a Transboundary Watershed – The Case of the Lower Mekong Basin. Springer, Dordrecht, Heidelberg, London, New York. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/97894-007-0476-3. De Stefano, L., 2010. Facing the water framework directive challenges: a baseline of stakeholder participation in the European Union. J. Environ. Manage. 91, 1332–1340. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2010.02.014. Dombrowsky, I., Hagemann, N., Houdret, A., 2014a. The river basin as a new scale for water governance in transition countries? A comparative study of Mongolia and Ukraine. Environ. Earth Sci. 72 (12), 4705–4726. Dombrowsky, I., Houdret, A., Horlemann, L., 2014b. Evolving river basin management in

For transition countries like Mongolia which (a) have pressing challenges related to the conservation of water resources and aquatic ecosystems and (b) already made the political decision to adopt IWRM as a general strategy, it is of interest to look at success stories of IWRM of other countries. Several European donor organisations promoted the IWRM concept in Mongolia in the recent past, which led not only to access to external funds but also to contacts between European experts and Mongolian stakeholders. It therefore appears logical that both water experts and policy-makers in Mongolia developed an interest in the EU WFD, which they considered a “best practice” example from “the developed world”. The EU WFD may support IWRM planning in non-EU countries in several respects. In the field of environmental monitoring, the EU-WFD can provide a starting point, but it also requires the additional step of selecting a limited but meaningful number of indicators that adequately reflect ecological states while not completely overburdening environmental agencies. However, there are important caveats, which prohibit a strict and exclusive adherence to the EU WFD. First and foremost, the EU WFD is focused on the central objective of achieving a good ecological state in surface waters. In Mongolia, relying solely on the EU WFD would be synonymous with neglecting other important challenges such as improvements in water provision or dealing with water scarcity in some parts of the country. Second, the EU WFD was originally designed for and by the relatively affluent countries of Western and Northern Europe. In countries with more constrained budgets such as Mongolia, it is therefore necessary to select a more limited number of priority measures. Third, it must be kept in mind that the EU WFD was designed for a different geographical region. Despite some similarities, IWRM planning in Mongolia must also consider the many region-specific 35

Environmental Science and Policy 75 (2017) 28–37

S. Heldt et al.

Framework Directive in 13 Member States. Water 8, 156. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ w8040156. Janzen, J., 2012. Die mongolei im Zeichen von Marktwirtschaft und Globalisierung. Geographische Rundschau 64 (12), 4–10. Karthe, D., Sigel, K., Scharaw, B., Stäudel, J., Hufert, F., Borchardt, D., 2012. Towards an integrated concept for monitoring and improvements in water supply, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) in urban Mongolia. Water Risk 20, 1–5. Karthe, D., Malsy, M., Kopp, B., Minderlein, S., Hülsmann, L., 2013. Assessing water availability and its drivers in the context of an integrated water resources management (IWRM): a case study from the Kharaa River Basin. Mongolia. GeoÖko 34 (1–2), 5–26. Karthe, D., Heldt, S., Houdret, A., Borchardt, D., 2015a. IWRM in a country under rapid transition: lessons learnt from the Kharaa River Basin, Mongolia. Environ. Earth Sci. 73 (2), 681–695. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12665-014-3435-y. Karthe, D., Hofmann, J., Ibisch, R., Heldt, S., Westphal, K., Menzel, L., Avlyush, S., Malsy, M., 2015b. Science-based IWRM implementation in a Data-Scarce Central Asian Region: experiences from a research and development project in the Kharaa River Basin, Mongolia. Water 7 (7), 3486–3514. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/w7073486. Karthe, D., Heldt, S., Rost, G., Londong, J., Ilian, J., Heppeler, J., Khurelbaatar, G., Sullivan, C., van Afferden, M., Stäudel, J., Scharaw, B., Westerhoff, T., Dietze, S., Sigel, K., Hofmann, J., Watson, V., Borchardt, D., 2016. Modular concept for municipal waste water management in the Kharaa River Basin, Mongolia. In: Borchardt, D., Bogardi, J., Ibisch, R. (Eds.), Integrated Water Resources Management: Concept, Research and Implementation. Springer, Heidelberg, Germany & New York, USA, pp. 649–681. Kaus, A., Schäffer, M., Karthe, D., Büttner, O., von Tümpling, W., Borchardt, D., 2016. Regional patterns of heavy metal concentrations in water, sediment and five consumed fish species of the Kharaa River basin, Mongolia. Reg. Environ. Change. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10113-016-0969-4. Leidel, M., Niemann, S., Hagemann, N., 2012. Capacity development as key factor for integrated water resources management (IWRM): improving water management in the Western Bug River Basin, Ukraine. Environ. Earth Sci. 65, 1415–1426. http://dx. doi.org/10.1007/s12665-011-1223-5. Mongolian Ministry for Environment and Green Development (MEGD), 2012. Integrated Water Resource Management National Assessment Report, vol. I–II Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia. Martin-Ortega, J., 2012. Economic prescription and policy applications in the implementation of the European Water Framework Directive. Environ. Sci. Policy 24, 83–91. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2012.06.002. Minderlein, S., Menzel, L., 2015. Evapotranspiration and energy balance dynamics of a semi-arid mountainous steppe and shrubland site in northern Mongolia. Environ. Earth Sci. 73 (2), 593–609. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12665-014-3335-1. Mitchell, B., 2004. Comments by bruce mitchell on water forum contribution integrated water resource management: a re-assessment by Asit K. Biswas. Water Int. 29 (3), 398–399. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02508060408691794. ORSAM, 2011. EU’s Water Framework Directive Implementation in Turkey: The Draft National Implementation Plan. ORSAM, Ankara, Turkey. Pfeiffer, M., Batbayar, G., Hofmann, J., Siegfried, K., Karthe, D., Hahn-Tomer, S., 2015. Investigating arsenic (As) occurrence and sources in ground, surface, waste and drinking water in northern Mongolia. Environ. Earth Sci. 73 (2), 649–662. http://dx. doi.org/10.1007/s12665-013-3029-0. Porsche-Ludwig, M., Gieler, W., Bellers, J., 2013. Handbuch Sozialpolitik Der Welt. LITVerlag Berlin. Prato, S., La Valle, P., De Luca, E., Lattanzi, L., Migliore, G., Morgana, J.G., Munari, C., Nicoletti, L., Izzo, G., Mistri, M., 2014. The “one-out, all-out” principle entails the risk of imposing unnecessary restoration costs: a study case in two Mediterranean coastal lakes. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 80 (2014), 30–40. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul. 2014.01.054. Priess, J., Schweitzer, C., Batkhishig, O., Koschitzki, T., Wurbs, D., 2015. Impacts of landuse dynamics on erosion risks and water management in Northern Mongolia. Environ. Earth Sci. 73 (2), 697–708. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12665-014-3380-9. Quah, J.S.T., 2006. Curbin Asian corruption: an impossible dream? Curr. Hist. 105, 176–179. Rahaman, M.M., Varis, O., Kajander, T., 2004. EU water framework directive vs. international principles concerning IWRM: the seven mismatches. Int. J. Water Resour. Dev. 20 (4), 565–575. Richter, S., Völker, J., Borchardt, D., Mohaupt, V., 2013. The water framework directive as an approach for integrated water resources management: results from the experiences in Germany on implementation, and future perspectives. Environ. Earth Sci. 69 (2), 719–728. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12665-013-2399-7. Rodríguez de Francisco, J.C., Houdret, A., Dombrowsky, I., 2017. Proceeding with River Basin Management: Legal, Financial and Political Dimensions in Mongolia. Briefing Paper 6/2017. German Development Institute, Bonn. Saravanan, V.S., McDonald, G.T., Mollinga, P.P., 2009. Critical review of integrated water resources management: moving beyond polarised discourse. Nat. Res. Forum 33 (2009), 76–86. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1477-8947.2009.01210.x. Sigel, K., Altantuul, K., Basandorj, D., 2012. Household needs and demand for improved water supply and sanitation in peri-urban ger areas: the case of Darkhan, Mongolia. Environ. Earth Sci. 65 (5), 1561–1566. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12665-0111221-7. Snellen, W.B., Schrevel, A., 2004. IWRM: for sustainable use of water –50 years of international experiences with the concept of integrated water management. In: Netherlands Conference on Water for Food and Ecosystems, 2004. Wageningen. Stalnacke, P., Gooch, G.D., 2010. Integrated water resource management. Irrig. Drainage Syst. 24 (2010), 155–159. Sumer, V., Muluk, C., 2011. Challenges for Turkey to Implement the EU Water

Mongolia? In: Huitema, D., Meijerink, S. (Eds.), The Politics of River Basin Organisations. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp. 265–297. European Commission (EC), 2000. Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 Establishing a Framework for Community Action in the Field of Water Policy. European Commission (EC), 2008. EU Gender Equality Law. Luxembourg. European Commission (EC), 2016. Water: Commission Refers GERMANY to the Court of Justice of the EU over Water Pollution Caused by Nitrates. Brussels. Online: http:// europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-16-1453_en.htm (Accessed May 2017). European Environment Agency (Ed.), 2012. European Waters – Assessment of Status and Pressures. European Environment Agency, Copenhagen. European Environmental Bureau (EEB) (Hrsg.), 2010. 10 Years of the Water Framework Directive: A Toothless Tiger? Brussels, Belgium. EU-Water Framework Directive (EU WFD) (2000) Richtlinie 2000/60/EG des Europäischen Parlamentes und Rates vom 23. Oktober 2000 zur Schaffung eines Ordnungsrahmens für Maßnahmen der Gemeinschaft im Bereich der Wasserpolitik. Fritz, V., 2007. Democratization and corruption in Mongolia. Public Admin. Dev. 27 (3), 191–203. Global Water Partnership (GWP), 2000. Integrated Water Resources Management. Global Water Partnership, Stockholm. Global Water Partnership (GWP), 2009. A Handbook for Integrated Water Resource Management in Basins. www.gwpforum.org. Giordano, M., Shah, T., 2014. From IWRM back to integrated water resources management. Int. J. Water Resour. Dev. 30 (3), 364–376. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/ 07900627.2013.851521. Gouldson, A., Lopez-Gunn, E., Van Alstine, J., 2008. New alternative and complementary environmental policy instruments and the implementation of the water framework directive. Eur. Env. 18, 359–370. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/eet.491. Hülsmann, L., Geyer, T., Schweitzer, C., Priess, J., Karthe, D., 2015. The effect of subarctic conditions on water resources: initial results and limitations of the SWAT model applied to the Kharaa river catchment in Northern Mongolia. Environ. Earth Sci. 73 (2), 581–592. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12665-014-3173-1. Haefner, A., 2016. Negotiating for Water Resources: Bridging Transboundary River Basins. Routledge, New York, USA. Hartwig, M., Theuring, P., Rode, M., Borchardt, D., 2012. Suspended sediments in the Kharaa River catchment (Mongolia) and its impact on hyporheic zone functions. Environ. Earth Sci. 65 (5), 1535–1546. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12665-0111198-2. Hawkins, R., 2007. Gender and water resource management in Mongolia. Master Thesis. University of York Toronto, Canada. Heldt, S., 2014. The EU WFD as an implementation tool for IWRM in non-European countries case study: drafting a river basin management plan for the Kharaa River Basin in Nothern Mongolia. Master Thesis. University of Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany. Hering, J.G., Ingold, K.M., 2012. Water resources management: what should be integrated? Science 336, 1234–12345. Hering, D., Borja, A., Carstensen, J., Carvalho, L., Elliott, M., Feld, C.K., Heiskanen, A.S., Johnson, R.K., Moe, J., Pont, D., Solheim, A.L., van de Bund, W., 2010. The European Water Framework Directive at the age of 10: a critical review of the achievements with recommendation for the future. Sci. Total Environ. 408 (19), 4007–4019. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2010.05.031. Hofmann, J., Venohr, M., Behrendt, H., Opitz, D., 2010. Integrated water resources management in central Asia: nutrient and heavy metal emissions and their relevance for the Kharaa River Basin. Mongolia. Water Sci. Technol. 62 (2), 353–363. http://dx. doi.org/10.2166/wst.2010.262. Hofmann, J., Hürdler, J., Ibisch, R., Schaeffer, M., Borchardt, D., 2011. Analysis of recent nutrient emission pathways, resulting surface water quality and ecological impacts under extreme continental climate: the Kharaa River Basin (Mongolia). Int. Rev. Hydrobiol. 96 (5), 484–519. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/iroh.201111294. Hofmann, J., Karthe, D., Ibisch, R., Schäffer, M., Kaus, A., Avlyush, S., Heldt, S., 2015a. Initial characterization and water quality assessment of stream landscapes in Northern Mongolia and its integration into a river basin management plan. Water 7 (7), 3166–3205. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/w7073166. Hofmann, J., Watson, V., Scharaw, B., 2015b. Groundwater quality under stress: contaminants in the Kharaa River basin (Mongolia). Environ. Earth Sci. 73 (2), 629–648. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12665-014-3148-2. Horlemann, L., Dombrowsky, I., 2012. Institutionalising IWRM in developing and transition countries: the case of Mongolia. Environ. Earth Sci. 65 (5), 1547–1559. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12665-011-1213-7. Houdret, A., Dombrowsky, I., Horlemann, L., 2014. The institutionalization of river basin management as politics of scale-insights from Mongolia. J. Hydrol. 519(C, 2392–2404. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2013.11.037. ICWE, 1992. In: International Conference on Water and the Environment: Development Issues for the 21st Century. 26–31 January 1992, Dublin, Ireland. . Report of the Conference, Geneva: World Meteological Organization; online: www.wmo.ch/web/ homs/documents/english/icwedece.html. Ibisch, R., Bogardi, J., Borchardt, D., 2016. Integrated water resources management: concept, research and implementation. In: Borchardt, D., Bogardi, J., Ibisch, R. (Eds.), Integrated Water Resources Management: Concept, Research and Implementation. Springer, Heidelberg, Germany & New York, USA, pp. 3–32. Jager, N.W., Challies, E., Kochskämper, E., Newig, J., Benson, D., Blackstock, K., Collins, K., Ernst, A., Evers, M., Feichtinger, J., Fritsch, O., Gooch, G., Grund, W., Hedelin, B., Hernández-Mora, N., Hüesker, F., Huitema, D., Irvine, K., Klinke, A., Lange, L., Loupsans, D., Lubell, M., Maganda, C., Matczak, P., Parés, M., Saarikoski, H., Slavíková, L., van der Arend, S., von Korff, Y., 2016. Transforming European Water Governance? Participation and River Basin Management under the EU Water

36

Environmental Science and Policy 75 (2017) 28–37

S. Heldt et al.

wasserrahmenrichtlinie_2012.pdf. United Nation Development Programm (UNDP), United Nation Children’s Fund (UNICEF), 2009. Improving Local Services for the Millennium Development Goals – Rural Water Suppla and Sanitation in Mongolia. Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia. Uddin, S.N.M., Li, Z., Gaillard, J.C., Tedoff, P.F., Mang, H.P., Lapegue, J., Huba, E.M., Kummel, O., Rheinstein, E., 2014. Exposure to WASH-borne hazards: a scoping study on peri-urban Ger areas in Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia. Habitat Int. 44, 403–411. Varis, O., Keskinen, M., Kummu, M., 2008. Mekong at the crossroads. AMBIO 37 (3), 146–149. Voulvoulis, N., Arpon, K.D., Giakoumis, T., 2017. The EU water framework directive: from great expectations to problems with implementation. Sci. Total Environ. 1 (575), 358–366. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.09.228. World Health Organization (WHO), 2010. Health and Environment in Europe: Progress Assessment. Copenhagen, Denmark.

Framework Directive. Turkey’s Water Policy, Heidelberg, Germany, pp. 43–67. Theuring, P., Rode, M., Behrens, S., Kirchner, G., Jha, A., 2013. Identification of fluvial sediment sources in a meso-scale catchment, Northern Mongolia. Hydrol. Process 27 (6), 845–856. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/hyp.9684. Thorslund, J., Jarsjö, J., Belozerorva, E., Chalov, S., 2012. Assessment of the gold mining impact on riverine heavy metal transport in a sparsely monitored region: the upper Lake Baikal Basin case. J. Environ. Monit. 14 (10), 2780–2792. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1039/C2EM30643C. Transparency International, 2012. Corruption in Natural Resource Management in Mongolia. (Last Accessed 05 July 2016). http://www.u4.no/publications/ corruption-in-natural-resource-management-in-mongolia/. UBA (Umweltbundesamt), 2012. Die Wasserrahmenrichtlinie—Ein Zwischenbilanz Zur Umsetzung Der Maßnahmenprogramme 2012. Accessed May 2017). https://www. umweltbundesamt.de/sites/default/files/medien/378/publikationen/

37