Assessing the European Water Stewardship Standard in the Context ...

Recommendations

Info

3 Theoretical Background 9 inputs of nitrogen are flushed through groundwater and drainage systems to surface waters (ibid). Major entry of pesticide pollution is caused by dissolved active agents coming from agricultural fields and farmyard run-off mostly in areas with sugar beet, corn and potato cultivation and fields with steep slopes (ibid). Major entry of pesticide pollution is caused by dissolved active agents coming from agricultural fields and farmyard run-off mostly in areas with sugar beet, corn and potato cultivation and fields with steep slopes (ibid). 3.2.2 Pollution of Groundwater All in all 224 groundwater bodies were distinguished in the German part of the Elbe River basin. Groundwater bodies are stressed by diffuse pollution (81.7%), point pollution (8.7%), groundwater abstraction, brown fields (7.8%), groundwater nourishment (no data) and intrusions (0.9%)(ibid). Diffuse pollution is dominantly recognized from agriculture and urban field use, extensive industrial areas, traffic, households and air pollution from industry. Nutrients in groundwater are mainly caused by agricultural activities especially regarding to nitrates. Due to the mitigation of over fertilization the inputs from nutrients were reduced in the past years. However this is not yet widely recognizable and measurable in the groundwater quality due to geological reasons such as the slow movement of the seepage water and groundwater. Nitrate inputs result in 59 out of 224 groundwater bodies to a bad chemical status. Furthermore pesticides enter the groundwater by diffuse pollution from agricultural fields. Three groundwater sources were assessed with a bad chemical status due to pesticides. Mostly these are active substances or metabolites which are not admitted anymore but still apparent in groundwater sources (ibid). Abstraction of groundwater caused for six groundwater bodies the classification of a bad quantitative status and is of minor importance for the Elbe River basin Within the analysis abstraction points > 100 m³/day were determined disregarding the designated use. Abstraction from agriculture is only relevant for the river basin Saale where it leads to a bad quantitative status (ibid).In the other five cases the rehabilitation of lignite mining led to the classification of a bad quantitative status.
3 Theoretical Background 10 3.3 The EU Water Framework Directive In the present chapter a brief summary of the development of the WFD will be given, followed by a description of the directive’s main purposes and the legal instruments implemented to achieve them. In 2000, the EU adopted the Directive 2000/60/EC which provides a framework for collective efforts in water policy within the union, also known as the European WFD. The WFD is a legislative framework that analyses, plans and manages water resources and protects aquatic ecosystems within the EU (RUMM et al. 2006). It is the most significant legal instrument adopted in the environmental sector and guides on an institutional level and as a whole (CHAVE 2001). The development of the directive can be described in three waves. The first wave started in 1975 with the idea of setting standards for water quality and the conservation of drinking water with bringing the Surface Water Directive and the Drinking Water Directive into force (KAIKA 2003). The second wave followed in 1991 focusing on emissions adding up on the previous quality standards including the Urban Wastewater Management Directive, the Directive for Integrated Pollution and Prevention Control, the new Drinking Water Quality Directive and the Nitrates Directive (RUMM et al. 2006). The WFD summarizes what is known as the third wave with the new approach of managing water in an integrative and holistic way. Once the WFD is completed in all its levels, seven other related Directives will be replaced (COLLINS et al. 2012). Besides the achievement of a good ecological status the four most striking and innovative characteristics of the WFD, as stated by VANROLLGHEM (2011), are: � To manage water according to its natural environment on a river basin basis crossing boundaries; � To perform a combined approach to control pollution, setting emission limit values and water quality objectives; � To recover costs by the user through reflecting the real costs of water use; and � To enable the public to be actively involved and comment on the suggested water management practices The main purpose of the Directive is to achieve a good ecological status for all types of water bodies by 2015. The requirements of the WFD refer to all surface waters – i.e. rivers, lakes and coastal waters – plus the whole groundwater within the EU. For natural surface water a good ecological and a good chemical status should be achieved. The ecological status is oriented along the natural character of a water body. The good chemical status is reached, if a water body is free of pollutants being listed in Annex VIII & X of the WFD (EU 2000). For artificial and heavily modified water bodies a good ecological potential is to be achieved.
Page 1 and 2: Assessing the European Water Stewar
Page 3 and 4: Abstract The EWS standard is a newl
Page 5 and 6: Acknowledgement It is a pleasure to
Page 7 and 8: List of Figures II 5.2.2 Applicabil
Page 9 and 10: List of Tables IV List of Abbreviat
Page 11 and 12: 1 Introduction 2 Being recently dev
Page 13 and 14: 3 Theoretical Background 4 3 Theore
Page 15 and 16: 3 Theoretical Background 6 treatmen
Page 17: 3 Theoretical Background 8 very low
Page 21 and 22: 3 Theoretical Background 12 units a
Page 23 and 24: 3 Theoretical Background 14 coordin
Page 25 and 26: 4 Methodology 16 4 Methodology The
Page 27 and 28: 4 Methodology 18 The chosen farms w
Page 29 and 30: 4 Methodology 20 Table 4: Extract o
Page 31 and 32: 4 Methodology 22 considered to be i
Page 33 and 34: 5 Results 24 improvement of the aqu
Page 35 and 36: 5 Results 26 Table 5: Alignment of
Page 37 and 38: 5 Results 28 difficulties during th
Page 39 and 40: 5 Results 30 indicator 3.1.1, refer
Page 41 and 42: 5 Results 32 been derived from othe
Page 43 and 44: 5 Results 34 Farmer E additionally
Page 45 and 46: 5 Results Table 9: Key statements o
Page 47 and 48: 6 Discussion 38 6 Discussion 6.1 Di
Page 49 and 50: 6 Discussion 40 6.2 Discussion of R
Page 51 and 52: 6 Discussion 42 of farmers was the
Page 53 and 54: 6 Discussion 44 cooperation with th
Page 55 and 56: 6 Discussion 46 Acceptance of stand
Page 57 and 58: 7 Conclusion, Recommendation and Ou
Page 59 and 60: 8 References 50 COLLINS, A., OHANDJ
Page 61 and 62: 8 References 52 EU (European Union)
Page 63 and 64: 8 References 54 KAVANAGH, P. & T. B
Page 65 and 66: 8 References 56 SRU (Sachverständi
Page 67 and 68: 8 References 58 EWP (European Water
Page 69 and 70:
9 Annex 60 4.3.1 n.a. 0 0 2 0 4.3.2
Page 71 and 72:
9 Annex 62 A.4: Categories for inte
Page 73 and 74:
9 Annex 64 1.1.3 Major 1.1.4 Major
Page 75 and 76:
9 Annex 66 Grundsatz 2. Sicherstell
Page 77 and 78:
9 Annex 68 2.1.6 Recc Kriterium 2.2
Page 79 and 80:
9 Annex 70 2.2.4 Major 2.2.5* Major
Page 81 and 82:
9 Annex 72 3.1.2 Minor 3.1.3 Recc 3
Page 83 and 84:
9 Annex 74 4.2.1 Recc 4.2.2 Recc Kr
Page 85 and 86:
9 Annex 76 4.4.1 Minor Ist das Wass
Page 87 and 88:
9 Annex 78 4.4.6 Minor Kriterium 4.
Page 89 and 90:
9 Annex 80 4.6.2 Major 4.6.3 Minor
Page 91 and 92:
9 Annex 82 4.8.1 Recc Kriterium 4.9
Page 93:
9 Annex 84 A.7: Affirmation Eidesst
show all

Assessing the European Water Stewardship Standard in the Context ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?