14. Water Framework Directive Terms:
Category
• Natural
• Heavily Modified (HM)
• Artificial (A)
Consequences for targets:
• Natural: Good Ecological State (GES) and
Good Chemical State (GCS)
• HM and A: Good Ecological Potential
(GEP) and GCS
15. Good Ecological State
• Good population of fish
• Good population of algae
• Good population of waterplants
• Good population of macrobenthos
• All other chemical substances meet the
standards
16. Good Chemical State
• 33 priority substances from WFD meet
the standards (PCB, Dioxine, et)
17. Surface waters - ecological status
Reference
condition
(article 5: analysis of river basin characteristics)
Characterisation
of water body type
Classification
(high, good, moderate, poor , bad)
Biological parameters (aq. flora, invert., fish)
Hydromorphological and physico-chemical parameters
(supporting)
19. Water Framework Directive
Quality assessment
1 Chemistry:
• EU prioritairy substances
2 Ecology:
• 4 Biological elements
• Ecology supporting chemistry
• Rest micropollutants
3 Hydromorology
21. Water Framework Directive Quality
assessment
Classification:
• Chemistry: 2 classes (Good/Bad)
• Ecology Natural Waters: 5 classes
• Ecology Heavily Modified and Artificial:
4 classes (maximum is Maximum
Ecological Potential: MEP)
22. Bad status Good status
Bad
status
Poor
status
Moderate
status
(differs moderately
from type specific
conditions)
Good
status
(slight changes
from type spec.
conditions)
High
status
(close to
undisturbed
conditions)
Chemical status
Ecological status
target
status
max. ecol.
potential
reference
biotic
elements
abiotic
elements
Water-quality status = Chemical status + Ecological status / potential
Ecological assessment (EU Water Framework Directive)
classification & presentation
yardstick
24. Water Framework Directive Quality
assessment
One out, all out principe:
All quality elements, including all
substances, must have the score GOOD
(GES of GEP) at minimum
25. Implementation
2009 2015 2021 20272005 2006
Identify
Risks
Monitor
“Water
Status”
1st
River
Basin
Plan
2nd
River
Basin
Plan
3rd
River
Basin
Plan
The WFD specifies three planning cycles of six years each up
to the year 2027
26. Water Framework Directive
Time Schedule
As European legislation superimposed on national law
• 2000 Into force
• 2005 Characterising riverbasin (present state)
• 2006 Monitoring program ready
• 2009 River basin management plan with measures
• 2015 Targets achieved = All waters have to be in
good quality (chemical and ecological)
• 2015 Adaption RBMP
• 2021 Targets achieved
27. T=0 (Present Status) in 2005
• Per waterbody all chemical and ecological data is
collected.
• Test if parameters meet the standards
• All sources of pollution have been identified for
the substances who do not meet the standards.
• Risks: what waterbodies are not in good quality in
2015?
• What are we going to do improve the bad quality?
28. Strictly Enforced
The strategy that will implement the
Directive has milestones and dates for
achieving them.
If we ‘fail’ the EU Commission will
immediately initiate legal action against the
Member State. Actions have already
commenced against some states.
32. What’s in the RBMP?
• Characteristics of the district;
– pressures and impacts
– risk assessment based on water quality, ecology,
quantity and hydro-morphology factors
– including protected areas
– economic assessment of water services
• Environmental objectives and timescale for achieving
• Programme of measures to achieve objectives
• Monitoring networks and programmes
• Consultation & participation opportunities for
“interested parties”
32
33. TYPE OF MEASURES (in basin and
waterbody)
• Technical measures:
– Fish ladder
– against soil erosion
– ………
• Economical instruments
– Fertilizer taxation
– ……..
• Non technical measures:
– Raising awareness of farmers
– ………………………
33
36. Recovering the Costs
• Water charges
• Polluter Pays: polluters and users should pay
for the natural resources they use and the
damage they create
• Economic efficiency and reduction of the
financial burden on public authorities.
37. Economical Implications
• cost-effectiveness analysis for selecting the measures
• cost-recovery analysis
• implementation of an incentive pricing policy
• Costs versus benefits (or avoiding costs)
37
38. Cost-effectiveness and EU rules
• It is allowed not to take measures for the following
reason:
• ‘completing the improvements within the timescale
would be disproportionately expensive’
• Member States may aim to achieve less stringent
environmental objectives for specific bodies of water
when they are so affected by human activity or their
natural condition is such that the achievement of these
objectives would be infeasible or disproportionately
expensive
38
39. The development of PoM and Economic analysis
1. Identify basic measures and their
cost
2. for the water bodies with risk of
non compliance, identify
supplementary measures (cost &
efficiency)
Draft of PoM
• Select the most
cost-effective set
of measures
• assess the cost
impacts of the
PoM on
economic
sectors (e.g on
water price paid
by households)
Programme of measures development
process
Economic analysis
The Water Framework Directive, economic
elements and derogations
40. Programme of measures (cost in million euros)
Total Per year
Basic measures 879 146
Supplementary
measures
3 929 655
Illustrations from Artois-Picardie River Basin and
the development of the programme of measures
41. Impact on economic sectors
Households Industry Agriculture
80% 10% - 15% 5% - 10%
WWTP
Sewerage
network
Water bill
• investments
• fees
• investments
• fees
Illustrations from Artois-Picardie River Basin and
the development of the programme of measures