Benefits In Achieving Sustainable Water Management Across The Eurozone - Essay Example

Benefits In Achieving Sustainable Water Management Across The Eurozone The EU Water Framework Directive 2000/60/EC describes the requirements for supervising and monitoring of surface waters in the EU within the general structure of river basin administration plans. The main aim of the WFD is to create a good status for all surface and ground waters such as lakes, rivers, customary water courses and coastal waters within the EU area. WFD mandates all EU Member nations to make sure that all ground and surface water are being maintained in better chemical and ecological status by 2015. According to Bouraoui and Grizetti (2011), in spite of plenty of strict legislations are in force in EU, many ground and surface water bodies in EU are yet daunted with high concentrations of phosphorus and nitrogen (Bouraoui et al 2014). Following the EC (2012), there exists doubts that many numbers of water bodies in EU may not reach the required objectives of WFD by 2015 (Kafflis & Butler 2001) This essay will analyse how successfully WFD has been in introducing ecosystem –oriented approach for EUs water resource management and water policy. Availability of water to agricultural sector places heavy pressure on available water bodies and to contain nutrient pollution still plays a significant threat to lakes, surface, transitional and groundwater quality in EU. Earlier, with the introduction of Nitrates Directive 91/676/EEC/1991, EU was able to minimise nitrogen losses from agricultural sector and after two decades of existence of such Directive, EU is successful in preventing in its member states, which have agriculture as their dominant industry such as Belgium, the Netherlands, France, etc. Accordingly the European Council (2010), due to introduction of 1991 Nitrates Directive , there had been a 55% fall in nitrate concentration trends in EU member states. According to Bouraoui and Grizetti (2011), the Urban Waste Water Directive 1991/271/EEC was successful in minimising the phosphorus losses to water bodies in Europe and also resulted in a lower magnitude of nitrogen losses(Bouraoui et al 2014:1). Guranteeing the Quality of Groundwater in EU Member States The WFD observed that with about three-fourths of EUs drinking-water supplies being derived from the groundwater sources, its prime significance is to guarantee quality of groundwater. Three unique varieties of monitoring are specified to evaluate the quality status of European waters such as surveillance, supervising or monitoring, operational supervising and investigative supervising (Kallis & Butler 2001). In accordance with Kallis & Butler (2001), the above EU directive establish ecosystem-oriented aims and development procedures at the level of the hydrographic basin as the foundation for water resource management. Nonetheless, accomplishment of the final aim of a “good “aggregate quality of all waters is problematic in terms of huge costs involved and the non-availability of necessary legal implementation. However, the WFD directive has introduced sweeping changes in the functioning of EUs water institutions and its planning procedure offer more information and will guarantee no further deterioration of waters. The WFD Directive impacting EUs 28 member nations, offers a significant step towards an ecosystem –oriented approach for EUs water resource management and water policy (Kallis & Butler 2001). Holzwarth (2002) suggests that the EU water directive can function as the fundamental of catchment-oriented governance for the fruitful administration of water quantity and quality in transboundry river basins. (Transboundry refers to a river that originates from one Member States but, by passing over another member states) Hammer et al (2011) argue that the WFD could be regarded as a reorganisation process of change in the ecosystems and institutional arrangement. The Hammer study employed hydrological mapping, document analysis, and GIS models to evaluate the institutional structure established for the implementation of WFD. The Hammer study analysed some of the prospects and obstacles for a sustainable management of water management from an ecosystem management viewpoint among EU Member States. It also viewed that ecosystem approach can be regarded as best solution for a sustainable management of water resources in EU Member States (Hammer et al 2011). Member States have implemented two daughter directives associated with WFD. The first one is the Groundwater Daughter Directive (Directive 2006/118EC) which sets out threshold restrictions for a variety of pollutants, which are indicator of groundwater status eminence. The second one is the Directive on Environmental Quality Standards (Directive 2008 /105/EC) which prescribes the concentration limits for a variety of substances to be regulated under the WFD (Bouraoui et al 2014) . (Now , it has been broken down into simple sentence). EU Directives have always produced the positive results for which it is issued. There have been proven earlier EU directives which had achieved its goal. For instance, with the introduction of Nitrates Directive 91/676/EEC/1991, EU was able to minimise nitrogen losses from agricultural sector and after two decades of existence of such Directive, EU is successful in combating in its member states. Further, the Urban Waste Water Directive 1991/271/EEC was successful in minimising the phosphorus losses to water bodies in Europe. The WFD Directive impacting EUs 28 member nations, offers a significant step towards an ecosystem –oriented approach for EUs water resource management and water policy. ( Yes , I am reiterating it for emphaising the findings) In spite of vast initiatives to minimise phosphorus and nitrogen loads mixing into the European surface, ground and sea waters, huge quantum of nutrients are still allowed to pollute in European waters jeopardising the ecological health of aquatic ecosystems. The Bouraoui et al (2014) study found that there is a great opportunity for minimising phosphrous and nitrogen on European ground and surface waters that have been recognised and for which WFD, other Directives like the Urban Waste Water Directive and EU Directive (259/2012) for regulating phosphates in detergents are in force. Hence, it is advocated that though the existing regulations and Directives of EU will take care of minimising the pollution in European surface, ground and sea waters, but, it is required to be implemented in stricter means. For examble, Denmark has buttressed that there is a need for reduction of nutrients in ground and surface water as it is impacting the economic sustainability of agricultural activities (Kronvang et al 2009). (now , it is simplified). WFD requires the EU member states to guarantee some minimum quality standard of water. But , many member states are yet to achieve this standard as on date. For instance , about 88% of German rivers have already reached the good chemical status. However , about 91% of German rivers are yet to accomplish good ecological status. Thus , in spite of WFD is in force in EU , the degradation of river morphology remains to be a severe barrier for accomplishing area-wide good ecological status in EU. Thus , so as to accomplish good ecological status in 100% of a river network , it is essential that at least 50% of the network will have to be elevated to the quality of a reproduction habitat. References Bouraoui, V. T., Grizzetti, B., Britz, W, & Bidogllo, G. (2014). Scenario Analysis for Nutrient Emission Reduction in the European Inland Waters. Environ Research Letters 9, 125007, 13 Hammer, M., Balfors B., Mortberg U., Petersson, M, & Quin, A. (March, 2011) Governance of Water Resources in the Phase of Change: A Case Study of the Implementation of the EU Water Framework Directive in Sweden. PubMed 40, (2) 210-220 Holzwarth, F. (2002) The EU Water Framework Directive – a key to catchment –based governance. Water Science Technology 45, (8) 105-112 Kafflis, G, & Butler, D. (2001) The EU Water Framework Directive: Measures and Implications. Water Policy 3, (2) 125-142 Klauer , B., Schiller,J, & Bathe, F. (2014). Cost-Effective Improvement of River Morphology. [online] available from https://www.ufz.de/export/data/global/57800_DP_9_2014_Klauer_et_al_Cost_Effective_River_Restoration.pdf > [accessed 13 February 2015] Kronvang, B., Windolf, J., Grant,R., Anderson, H, E., Thodsen, H, Ovesen, N, B, & Larsen, S, E. (2009) Linking, Monitoring and Modelling for River Basin Management: Danish Experience with Combating Nutrient Loadings to the Aquatic Environment from Point and Non-point Sources. Science China E: Technology Science 52, 3335-3347 Read More