Jump to content

Water Framework Directive

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ventdouxprod (talk | contribs) at 14:09, 12 October 2018 (I removed 2 little mistakes in the text). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Directive 2000/60/EC
European Union directive
TitleWater Framework Directive
Made byEuropean Parliament & Council
Made underArticle 175(1)
Journal referenceOJL 327, 22 December 2000, pp. 1–73
History
Date made23 October 2000
Entry into force22 December 2000
Implementation date22 December 2003
Other legislation
Amended byDecision No 2455/2001/EC, Directive 2008/32/EC
Current legislation

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[1] covered by the Directive failing to achieve the aim.

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:

  • 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”.[2]

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".[2]

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.[3]

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.[4]

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.[6]

The unreliable assessment of water status under the Water Framework Directive and subsequent EU directives

According to the EU Water Framework Directive (WFD), the chemical status of a surface water body is either good or bad. Out of tens of thousands of chemicals available on the EU marketplace and used daily, the European parliament and council of the EU have established concentration thresholds in surface water bodies for only 53 of them, including 45 priority substances. When none of the 53 substances exceed their legal concentration thresholds in a surface water body, the chemical status is deemed good. In 2017, the list of 53 substances includes metals (e.g., cadmium, mercury, lead), pesticides (e.g., aclonifen, isoproturon, trifluralin), hydrocarbons (e.g., benzene, dioxins, fluoranthene) and solvents (e.g., dichloromethane).[7][8][9][10]

Groundwater chemical status is either good or bad as well. By law in the EU, the concentrations of at least thirteen categories of pollutants must be measured in each water body. These categories are ammonium (concentration threshold of 0.5 mg/l in France), arsenic (10 µg/l), cadmium (5 µg/l), chloride (250 mg/l), mercury (1 µg/l), nitrates (50 mg/l), nitrites (0.50 mg/l), pesticides (0.1 µg/l individually and 0.5 µg/l for all pesticides), lead (10 µg/l), phosphorus or phosphates, sulphate (250 mg/l), trichlorethylene (10 µg/l) and tetrachloroethene (10 µg/l). If the concentration of one pollutant exceeds a threshold, the chemical status is considered bad. If not, it is deemed good when two additional conditions are met: the concentrations of the thirteen categories of pollutants do not prevent connected surface water bodies from reaching good status or good potential; they do not cause the effects of salt water intrusion or other problems in terms of conductivity for example.[11][12][13][14]

So only a tiny minority of existing polluting substances are measured to assess water chemical status. And they are only measured individually. Therefore, the harmful impacts of their combination on water bodies are totally ignored. In such conditions, the assessment of water chemical status is an intellectual fraud and a deliberate lie backed by all EU member states and EU institutions.[7][13][15]

The shortcomings of the evaluation of the ecological status of water bodies are of lesser magnitude. Evaluators measure the concentrations of nitrogen, phosphorus, four metals (arsenic, chromium, copper, zinc) and five pesticides (2,4D, chlortoluron, linuron, MCPA, oxadiazon). In addition, they control the acidity of water[8], its salinity, temperature, and dissolved oxygen concentration. The evaluation further encompasses invertebrate, fish and plant populations as well as hydromorphological alterations. For a river, the level of these alterations is assessed by measuring its width, depth, bed slope, currents, streambanks and ecological continuity (i.e., free movements of animal species and good sediment transport). The ecological status of a surface water body obtained is then compared with conditions of similar surface waters with little or no impact from human activities (baseline conditions). By measuring the gap between the status obtained and baseline conditions, evaluators get the final ecological status (high, good, moderate, poor or bad).[16][17][13][8][18][19][20]

Looks pretty good? Then consider the following. In Artois-Picardie, the assessment of ecological status either completely ignores or does not adequately take into account: the extinction of otters and beavers; the scarcity of salmon and eels; the fragmentation of old-growth forests (i.e., areas continuously forested for at least 250 years); the disappearance of primary forests. These species and forest types used to be common in many regional watersheds. They significantly contributed to biodiversity and food webs in aquatic ecosystems and could influence the physico-chemical properties of surface water[21][22][23][24][25][26][27].

In an article published in 2017, a group of thirty-five researchers suggested ways to improve the assessment of the status of water bodies. They recommend the use of effect-based-tools like bioassays in order to detect the cumulative effects of a mixture of chemicals, and especially their interactions with aquatic organisms. Good idea. But guess what, even this group of recognized scientists does not put forward practical ways to drastically reduce or ban the use of most existing pollutants. They just want a better assessment and “reduce the chemical footprints of man-made practices”. What is the point of merely suggesting a better assessment that lots of scientists already know of? What is the point if their proposal is not supplemented with a well thought out plan for the elimination of most of these chemical footprints? The thirty-five researchers even declare in their conclusion: “The WFD […] has successfully safeguarded the protection, restoration, and sustainable use of EU water resources”. They started with a good idea (a better assessment) and ended up with a lie about EU law: the WFD does not safeguard the protection, restoration, and sustainable use of EU water resources. This being said, the assessment of the status of water bodies might get better by 2020. But it will not dramatically improve the chemical status of water bodies until most chemicals causing pollution are banned or their use drastically reduced by law. Tens of thousands of them.[28][15]

See also

References

  1. ^ 2012 WFD review by the European Commission http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52012DC0670&from=EN
  2. ^ a b "WATER FRAMEWORK DIRECTIVE: THE WAY TOWARDS HEALTHY WATERS" (PDF). Umweltbundesamt. Retrieved 1 April 2016.
  3. ^ "The Water Framework Directive: A New Directive for a Changing Social, Political and Economic European Framework — European Planning Studies". informaworld.com. Retrieved 23 March 2008.
  4. ^ "Introduction to the new EU Water Framework Directive". European Commission. Retrieved 16 May 2012.
  5. ^ "GB104028046440". Retrieved 10 July 2016.
  6. ^ "Economic assessment of the Ebro Water Transfer". European Commission. Archived from the original on 4 March 2016. Retrieved 31 March 2014.
  7. ^ a b "Les micropolluants de l'eau à la loupe" (PDF). {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  8. ^ a b "Liste des substances prises en compte dans la caractérisation de l'état des eaux". {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  9. ^ "Définition du bon état". {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  10. ^ "DIRECTIVE 2013/39/EU OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 12 August 2013 amending Directives 2000/60/EC and 2008/105/EC as regards priority substances in the field of water policy". {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  11. ^ "Commission Directive 2014/80/EU of 20 June 2014 amending Annex II to Directive 2006/118/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of groundwater against pollution and deterioration". {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  12. ^ "Directive 2006/118/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on the protection of groundwater against pollution and deterioration". {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  13. ^ a b c "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". {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  14. ^ "Circulaire du 23/10/12 relative à l'application de l'arrêté du 17 décembre 2008 établissant les critères d'évaluation et les modalités de détermination de l'état des eaux souterraines et des tendances significatives et durables de dégradation de l'état chimique des eaux souterraines". {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  15. ^ a b "European water polluters (11/2017)". {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  16. ^ "L'État Des Lieux des districts hydrographiques" (PDF). {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  17. ^ "Règles d'évaluation de l'état des eaux". {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  18. ^ "Arrêté du 25 janvier 2010 relatif aux méthodes et critères d'évaluation de l'état écologique, de l'état chimique et du potentiel écologique des eaux de surface pris en application des articles R. 212-10, R. 212-11 et R. 212-18 du code de l'environnement". {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  19. ^ "IREP - Registre des Emissions Polluantes". {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  20. ^ "Qu'est-ce que le bon état des eaux ?" (PDF). {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  21. ^ "Partez à la rencontre de la biodiversité - Les poissons et leurs habitats dans le bassin Artois-Picardie" (PDF). {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  22. ^ "Une forêt productrice de bois mais pas seulement..." {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  23. ^ "Biodiversité et fertilité selon l'ancienneté de l'état boisé" (PDF). {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  24. ^ "Évolution des populations de la loutre en France". {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  25. ^ "Répartition du castor sur le réseau hydrographique". {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  26. ^ "Plan de gestion anguille de la France" (PDF). {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  27. ^ "Histoire biogéographique du castor d'Europe, Castor fiber". {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  28. ^ "Towards the review of the European Union Water Framework Directive: Recommendations for more efficient assessment and management of chemical contamination in European surface water resources". {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Water_Framework_Directive&oldid=863709385"