User:Swimmer504/Water Framework Directive

Article Draft
The Water Framework Directive 2000/60/EC is an EU directive which commits European Union member states to achieve good qualitative and quantitative status of all water bodies (including marine waters up to one nautical mile from shore) by 2015. It is a framework in the sense that it prescribes steps to reach the common goal rather than adopting the more traditional limit value approach. The Directive's aim for 'good status' for all water bodies will not be achieved, with 47% of EU water bodies covered by the Directive failing to achieve the aim. For example, the Netherlands have postponed their duties required by this directive year after year, and still to this day have not met EU water standards.

'The key points from the WFD are outlined in Article 4 of the Directive, which supplements the legal basis. Article 4 describes the environmental objectives for river basin management; it requires member states to develop River Basin Management Plans (RBMPs) for surface waters, groundwater, and protected areas. In turn, the RBMPs set in place specific Programs of Management (PoMs) “to protect and, where necessary, restore water bodies to good status, and to prevent deterioration. According to a Press Release from the Court of Justice of the European Union, the Court replies that deterioration is “established as soon as the status of at least one of the elements, within the meaning of Annex V to the directive, falls by one class, even if that fall does not result in a fall in classification of the body of surface water as a whole”. Because of these guidelines, PoMs assistance might look like measuring pollution levels, assuring compensation for damage to dwelling areas, and educating the general population on sustainable practices.'

Objectives of the Directive
The Directive aims for 'good status' for all ground and surface waters (rivers, lakes, transitional waters, and coastal waters) in the EU.

The ecological and chemical status of surface waters are assessed according to the following criteria (see also: freshwater environmental quality parameters):


 * Biological quality (fish, benthic invertebrates, aquatic flora)
 * Hydromorphological quality such as river bank structure, river continuity or substrate of the river bed
 * Physical-chemical quality such as temperature, oxygenation and nutrient conditions
 * Chemical quality that refers to environmental quality standards for river basin specific pollutants. These standards specify maximum concentrations for specific water pollutants. If even one such concentration is exceeded, the water body will not be classed as having a “good ecological status”.

The Water Framework Directive stipulates that groundwater must achieve "good quantitative status" and "good chemical status" (i.e. not polluted) by 2015. Groundwater bodies are classified as either "good" or "poor". Ecological Quality Ratio (EQR) is used to determine the ecological water quality status.

Article 14 of the directive requires member states "to encourage the active involvement of interested parties" in the implementation of the directive. This is generally acknowledged to be an assimilation of the Aarhus Convention.

History of the Directive & Legal Basis
Legal basis for the Directive can be found in Article 191 of the TFEU, and Article 192 provides concrete actionable items for executing the standards in Article 191. In order to urge EU member states to comply with EU water standards, the Water Framework Directive was established in 2000—requiring all member states to establish said water standards by 2015. Yet there are still member states that have still not complied with these standards.

The WFD includes an amendment called Annex X: a catalog of priority substances that EU member states are required to monitor in the surface waters of their basins and other bodies. '''A subset of Annex X, the criteria for these substances are displayed in the Environmental Quality Standards Directive (EQSD) and have to be fulfilled in order to reach “good? Surface water chemical status, which is explained in WFD Article 4 and Annex V point 1.4.3. Additionally, the WFD phrases certain EQSs as substances of national concern, and ensures that Member States adhere to a compiled list of priority pollutants and other issues that is updated every six years.'''

Recently, the Commission proposed to revise their list of surface water and groundwater pollutants. If this proposal succeeds, member states will receive more pressure to make their pollutant data more transparent and publicly available, along with complying with the proposed limits, restrictions, and standards.

'There has also been a shift in the freshwater resources market. Many member states have transferred their interests from privatized companies by region to a hybrid of government/state-owned and privatized. The WFD, however, does not demand the usage of public water and sanitation agencies. The Netherlands currently do not have a public agency, despite “only 1% of Dutch waterways meeting EU standards,” but Scotland, which has a water and sanitation regulator, charts a mere 3% of polluted waterways.'

'''In Sweden, the journey to implement the WFD has traversed many legal challenges. Article 4’s objectives impose a dual obligation to EU member states: to prevent the deterioration of bodies of water and achieve “good status,” according to Söderasp. However, these two requirements have proved legally quagmired. The Weser Case, C-461/13 Bund v Germany, described the obligatory nature of these requirements as well as the duty that member states have to reject projects that contradict environmental goals via the WFD, unless following previously approved derogations.  This case exposed Sweden’s interpretation and implementation of the WFD, as the palpable tension between national legal traditions and EU mandates was evident. Weser has since been a frequenter of Swedish courts. However, justices have found the precedent set by Weser to be legally questionable.'''

In the Norvicks port ॥ case, the MÖD’s decision to authorize the project despite acknowledgement of negative environmental impacts raised concerns. '''There was a debate over which types of water bodies qualify under the scope of the WFD, and ended with a decision that the environmental disruption would only occur in a negligible area. The MÖD disregarded the project’s potential to deteriorate good water status which appeared inconsistent with CJEU precedent; this emphasized the need for careful and consistent interpretation of EU law in Swedish courts. Because the WFD is regulated by the ECDP provisions, partly, within Article 192 of the Treaty on the functioning of the TFEU, it urges a shift that EU environmental policy should be based on preventive measures within the strategy which takes care of ecological quality—narrowly defined in the WFD. However, the WFD is supposed to maintain the overall level of environmental quality by setting the standards that help to restore and to maintain intact the aquatic resources across the EU. To fulfill this purpose, member states must set out and take all the required measures to produce and maintain top-grade water status. Nevertheless, in the case of the Norvicks port II, which was not in strict accordance with the principle of precaution and the goal of the WFD, the prerequisites were not fulfilled. Similar to the Netherlands, derogations have always posed several challenges to the Water Authorities in each region. Any derogations that were made under Swedish law lacked flexibility—leading to future complications and highlighting the need for any and all reforms to align national legislation more closely with the WFD’s objectives.'''

Spatial management of river basins
One important aspect of the Water Framework Directive is the introduction of River Basin Districts. These areas have been designated, not according to administrative or political boundaries, but rather according to the river basin (the spatial catchment area of the river) as a natural geographical and hydrological unit. As rivers often cross national borders, representatives from several Member States have to co-operate and work together for the management of the basin (so-called transboundary basins). They are managed according to River Basin Management Plans, which should provide a clear indication of the way the objectives set for the river basin are to be reached within the required timescale. They should be updated every six years.

To facilitate data recoding, each stretch of water is given a "Water Framework Directive ID" ("WFDID" or "Waterbody ID"). For example, the stretch of the River Tame, in the West Midlands of England, from the River Blythe to River Anker is referred to as GB104028046440. To facilitate data recoding, each stretch of water is given a "Water Framework Directive ID" ("WFDID" or "Waterbody ID"). For example, the stretch of the River Tame, in the West Midlands of England, from the River Blythe to River Anker is referred to as GB104028046440.[5]

Transgressions
The Ebro River Transfer, a project from the Spanish National Hydrological Plan of 2001 was highly criticised as being contrary to the principles of the EU Water Framework Directive, and later put on hold. The project planned to transfer huge amounts of water from the Ebro River to the south-east of Spain with the construction of 120 dams.

WFD in the UK after Brexit
The Water Environment (Water Framework Directive) (England and Wales) Regulations 2017 updated the 2003 framework in England and Wales, with separate regulations applying to Scotland and Northern Ireland. Before the UK joined what was then the "Common Market", water body management was organised by river basins; first by the River Boards, then the River Authorities, then the Water Authorities and finally the Environment Agency in England,Natural Resources Wales in Wales and SEPA in Scotland. This is a long tradition of river basin management which the UK will retain in its approach to the spatial management of river basins. Each River Basin District (RBD) will continue to be required to produce a River Basin Management Plan. An RBD is defined as "the area of land and sea, made up of one or more neighbouring river basins together with their associated groundwaters and coastal waters".

A Success Case
'The WFD has made an impact in several countries that have implemented it’s policies. Prior to Brexit, the WFD had a sizable impact on the River Thames in the UK. Pollution from the industrial era and urban development had caused a significant loss of biodiversity in the river ecosystem. However, thanks to the WFD, the UK took decisive action by implementing specific sewage treatment plans and introducing green infrastructure like riparian buffer zones. These efforts have led to notable improvements in water quality and the restoration of fish populations, including salmon and trout.'

Additionally, the Tagus River, which extends across the length of the Iberian Peninsula, faced a host of environmental challenges stemming from urbanization, agriculture, and industrialization—just like the UK. However, concerted efforts under the auspices of the WFD have catalyzed a remarkable transformation in the Tagus’ ecological health. 'Collaborative initiatives between both Portugal and Spain have been instrumental in the rehabilitation of the Tagus River. Through meticulous pollution control measures, strategic reforestation of riparian zones, and targeted restoration of wetlands, significant strides have been made in rejuvenating this vital waterway.'