Progress towards the implementation of the European Water Framework Directive (2000–2012)

Abstract

The European Water Framework Directive, which came into force in 2000, introduced a system of river basin management which required member states to develop a range of new biological assessment systems to determine the status of Europe"s surface waters. Member states were free to use existing methods or to develop new ones, which resulted in a large number of methods being used across Europe. To ensure the comparability of the resulting assessments, these states were required to compare their methods to demonstrate that the boundary criteria they established represented similar levels of ecological change. Although it is desirable to align status class boundaries to significant changes of ecological status, so that the resulting classifications can be linked to ecosystem function, many methods simply divide status into five equal classes along a pressure gradient. An exception was the approach used for lakes, where a greater understanding of the impacts of eutrophication has been established. Here, boundaries Downloaded by [Ryerson University] at 04:29 03 December 2014 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 2were derived from the likelihood of undesirable disturbances caused by the secondary impacts of eutrophication. The Water Framework Directive has now been in force for twelve years, new monitoring systems have been developed and management plans have been adopted. While it is unlikely that the aim of achieving good ecological status can be achieved in the majority of surface waters by 2015, the default target established by the directive, good progress is being made and Europe is on the path to establishing a sustainable future for its water environment.

Unpacking organizational capacity in the context of the Water Framework Directive

“…Substantial research relating to the Directive has been carried out, especially on the application practicalities of implementing the WFD provisions. Key areas for investigation have included: policy design challenges associated with harmonizing interests across geographical scales (Moren-Abat and Rodriguez-Roldan 2012), disparities between the ambitions set by Member States for fulfilment of the Directive's institutional requirements and the actual practical implementation at local levels (Liefferink et al 2011), the need to use more scientifically rigorous methods to assess the status of water bodies and the associated difficulties of monitoring the implemented interventions (Hering et al 2010, Birk et al 2012, Phillips 2014, as well as effective ways of using obtained data to inform management options and outcomes at the European and regional level (Hering et al 2010). However, less well understood is the extent to which competent authorities have the capacity required to deliver the WFD ambitions.…”

Incorporating nature conservation objectives and measures into the Water Framework Directive

“…The WFD has introduced a nomenclatural change from 'water quality' to the more scientifically agreeable but equally nebulous 'ecological status'. 'Ecological status' is defined in the WFD as 'an expression of the quality of the structure and functioning of aquatic ecosystems', but the associated 31-page long Annex V of technical 'quality elements', 'normative definitions', 'classification' and monitoring terms can leave one reeling and confused (see Phillips (2014) for a summary of status assessment under the WFD).…”

Ecosystem change in the large and shallow Lake Säkylän Pyhäjärvi, Finland, during the past ~400 years: implications for management

“…Restoration of eutrophicated lakes in Europe aims to maintain or restore good ecological status according to EU's Water Framework Directive where 'good ecological status' is defined for all lake types based on a set of variables to be compared to reference systems (European Union, 2000;Phillips, 2014). The current status is evaluated relative to past 'pristine status', i.e.…”