Menu
The ecological and chemical status of water quality in Europe has been stagnating for the last two decades in the vast majority of member states, even though innovative and radical legislation for improving water quality was proposed by the European Commission in 2000, in the form of a Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC). What is the secret of this status quo? If the answer lies in the work of policymakers and their supportive agents, why not have a closer look at an often disregarded but crucial aspect of this wicked problem: the role of their emotions in sustaining and endlessly fueling water quality dilemmas.
Picture 2
I have been dedicating the last ten years of my life to working on the Water Framework Directive (WFD). Some of my former colleagues were involved in the very first moments of this law. It was one of the most ambitious pieces of environmental law they had ever negotiated: its objective is to reach good ecological status in all European water bodies originally by 2015, later postponed to 2027. Because it was so ambitious, they had to compromise on certain aspects with member states, for instance by leaving ambiguities in the legal requirements. For instance, some legal definitions were blurred: member states are supposed to recover all environmental and resource costs of water use, but nowhere are environmental and resource costs properly defined. Similarly, it is up to member states to define what is considered a ‘’water use’’ or ‘’water service’’, or how to define the hydrological boundaries of their water bodies. This is my legacy. Current implementation of the Directive by member states is performed with regards to the original text and how it was interpreted at national level. To understand how to further progress towards our water quality objectives, and how to address remaining obstacles, it is my role to make sure that these interpretations are going in the right direction, and can guarantee sufficient effort from every member state.
There has been a very high number of infringement cases (i.e. member states who have not complied with the requirements of the WFD are brought to the EU Court of Justice) and derogations (e.g. extended deadlines for achieving the ultimate goal of good water status; reduced environmental objectives for water bodies if restoration of good status is proven to be technically infeasible or disproportionately expensive to achieve) with regard to the implementation of the Water Framework Directive. This means that member states are not always showing good will in complying with the objectives. The Commission considers that the text of the WFD is still fit for purpose (European Commission, 2019), but this text is useless if it is constantly bypassed or used at minimal effort, which the ambiguities of the text unfortunately enable. Some court rulings have allowed to clarify the WFD requirements and solidify the text, such as the Wester case (C-461/13): regarding how to interpret the principle of ‘’non-deterioration’’ (i.e. not further damage the ecological status of a water body), the European Court of Justice ruled in 2015 that member states are obliged to refuse any individual project estimated to compromise the objectives of the Directive (Paloniity, 2016). The Commission can do its best to incentivize member states to do better, but at some point, they are the ones responsible for the job and must rise to the challenge.
At the time when the text was adopted in 2000, some said it was a ‘’miracle’’. Member states accepted a law that would no longer be adopted today. In that sense, there is a strong fear that member states or interested parties such as industries and lobbies would try to open the text again and reduce its objectives and requirements. For that reason, the Commission is very cautious to protect and preserve the acquis of the text, and to not propose any revision of the Directive until 2027. This is partly why, in 2019, when a broad evaluation of the progress of WFD implementation was conducted, the Commission concluded that even though progress towards the environmental objectives is disappointing, the text itself is not to be questioned and should still be considered fit for purpose (European Commission, 2019). If it had concluded otherwise, and for instance acknowledged that it is very unrealistic that any member state manage to reach the 2027 target of good ecological status for all water bodies, there would have been a high risk that member states would have simply given up on even trying harder to achieve the original objective. It is like walking on eggs!
The WFD has changed so many things in how water is managed in Europe today. Monitoring of ecological status has been one of its greatest successes, meaning that Europe now possesses an incredibly higher amount of information on the aquatic ecosystems of European water bodies compared to before 2000. Each country has appointed responsible authorities for managing the river basins, which has also led to greater awareness around the health of water bodies. The original ambition of the Commission to reach a holistic water management in Europe, that would create connections between different sectors and policy fields in how water is managed, has been realized to some extent. Other fields have thus benefited from the WFD, such as chemical policy: thanks to the WFD, certain chemicals could be banned from the REACH (Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals) protocol[1]. Many lessons have been learned. The Common Implementation Strategy, set out in 2001 to provide guidance on implementation practices, and a platform for sharing knowledge between member states, has significantly improved knowledge and skills in water management practices. It has enabled more cooperation between member states, and a sense of a common goal. [1] EU ruling regulating chemical substances in Europe.
The Commission provides consequent work to push member states to comply with the WFD: filing court cases, evaluating implementation progress, processing river basin management plans from every member state, represent a heavy workload. This work is not often recognized, and worse, can be disappointing in terms of results compared with the time and effort invested. All this work rarely results in enhancing water protection, since it is up to member states in the end to provide the ultimate effort. Some water bodies are still in a critical state, and it is quite likely that many of them will not be in better shape by 2027.
I am an employee of the ministry for Environment in Luxembourg. With the budget that I receive from my minister, my team and I are in charge of applying the Directive’s requirements and bringing all Luxembourg’s water bodies to be in good ecological status. This is usually represented on a map, that is communicated to my minister and to the European Commission, where we show water bodies in bad ecological status in red, and the ones in good ecological status in green. My biggest challenge when doing my job is the so-called ‘’one-out-all-out principle’’ stipulated by the WFD. It means that even if all the rest of the indicators for good ecological status are achieved, if one substance only is above or below the required threshold for good ecological status, the whole water body must appear in red. In other terms, the Commission does not accept a water body to be considered in good ecological status even if one indicator only is in the red. It is therefore quite a daunting task for me to show results to my minister by bringing Luxembourg’s water body to green, since my responsibilities are strictly limited to water policy, and I have no power over other sectors such as agriculture or industry. If, on the side of all my efforts, the amount of cattle increases in the country due to national agriculture policies, this can ruin our progress on water quality by bringing up the amount of nutrients in the water. It is not in my power to solve this dilemma.
Inspired from the testimony of a Water Director, online interview, 27/01/2023
The relationship between agriculture and water policies produces tensions in my daily work. Because these policies are often treated separately, some decisions concerning the agricultural sector infringe on progress in water policy. This results in invisibilizing certain efforts in WFD implementation: for instance, Luxembourg has invested significantly in waste water treatment infrastructure since the WFD’s adoption, by making bigger basins that enable more efficient nitrification. Even though this can be considered as a success in terms of WFD implementation, the global amount of nitrate emissions has remained the same, because in parallel with the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), the number of cattle and pigs has increased. This means that no change appears in terms of nitrate emissions on Luxembourg’s waters[1]. Am I the modern Sisyphus? [1] Water Director, online interview, 27/01/2023
Water Directors or WFD implementers in the ministries often fear cuts in their budgets due to the apparent lack of progress in the water quality field. My minister, who has been a green minister for years, said to me, "Listen Joseph, I give you millions of euros, what do you do with this money? You always stay in the red!"[1]. The reason for this misunderstanding with my superior is that the indicators of good ecological status (red if not good enough, green if good ecological status is achieved) do not enable us to show certain progress. I wish that my implementation efforts would be more visible to avoid budget cuts, if only the methodologies currently in use to assess good ecological status could be changed[2]. [1] Water Director, online interview, 27/01/2023 [2] These demands appear in the so-called Vienna document (Lickes, 2018).
Since we started implementing the Directive, we made huge progress in numerous areas related to water policy. One example is our significant improvement and development of wastewater treatment plants. Nitrate emissions used to come from these plants by 50%, now they are only responsible for 25% of all emissions. Our way of working has also changed, it is less siloed. We learned to collaborate with other administrations, like the one of nature and forests. And even if some things could be better - for instance, salmon is still not back in our river basins, after it disappeared in 1964 due to the canalization of the Moselle river -, we can still celebrate that other types of migratory fish have made their reappearance.
I sometimes need to ask for less ambitious, but more reasonable and achievable targets. Some would say that I am not doing my job well enough, that I am not putting the necessary effort. Truth is, it would take a systemic change in national governance to be able to comply with the Directive. I cannot make things move by myself. Until that change happens, if I want to continue my work, I have to play with the current rules of the game.
There are many types of scientists, and many forms of expertise. In Pielke’s typology, I could be a ’pure scientist’’ (focus is only on science), or a ‘’science arbiter’’ (leads to negotiation between scientific and political debates), or an ‘’issue advocate’’ (focus on what is politically desirable), or finally a ‘’knowledge broker’’(publicly associates scientific claims with possible action pathways) (Pielke, 2007). I cannot really say I am any of these, but maybe a mix of two. When I was asked to join the negotiations of the WFD at the Council of ministers to represent my country, I was more of a science arbiter. But of course, having worked as an expert adviser in the ministry years before, I have a good sense of the political reality in my country. On occasions, I have therefore been an ‘’issue advocate’’, concerned by what policy outcome would be politically desirable and feasible. Now that I am back working for my ministry, I continue wearing these hats. Where does that take me?
As a scientist, I am sometimes used for political matters, meaning that the evidence I am asked to build sometimes serves political interests. This is far from the role of ‘’pure scientist’’ role described by Pielke. I do not work on neutral ground. During the negotiations at EU level, I had quite some power in arguing against or promoting certain policy decisions. My expertise in the field was my passport for convincing my ministry this was the right thing to do. This is hardly the case now, my opinion does not matter as much with regards to how my country implements the Directive. Political interests are hard to contest, even when the science would logically tell you that this or that should or should not be done. For instance, I could tell my ministry that some substances need to be removed from water bodies by dredging the sediments, but this would not make sense in terms of cost-benefit. Some other activities that are not as efficient might do better with the available amount of budget. These things, I cannot ignore… And it is sometimes immensely frustrating not to be able to apply what science says we should do.
I am sometimes afraid that us scientists got carried away with the technical details. The WFD has become so complex that it is hard to untangle all its technicalities. A newcomer who would discover what we have made of it would probably prefer to leave his or her brain on the table rather than trying to solve this intricate problem a minute more. It is therefore quite hard to find successors, people who understand the whole process as well as the ones who have years and decades of experience in this field. When the next generation of scientists come, how will we make sure that our knowledge is transmitted?
Science has made so much progress since the emergence of the WFD. The EU has allocated a significant budget to European research projects all over Europe. These have sparked collaborations and provoked an emulation in academic research on water quality. The Harmoni-CA project for instance, launched as early as 2002, had the objective of creating a bridge between research and water management practice, coordinate activities between research projects and gather existing information that could be useful for WFD implementation. The Common Implementation Strategy also enabled scientists and experts to align across Europe: now we can talk on a common basis, we share the same elements, the same concepts, and there is a thriving scientific community around this.
In theory, the text of the Directive should have very positive effects on water quality and aquatic life. In practice, this is another story… How sad to observe the gap between theory and practice grow this big! What is the purpose of science if it is only accessible to a few, and used by even lesser people?
With my knowledge and experience in the water field, I could have decided to advise a government, or to become a policymaker at the DG ENV in the EU Commission. I decided otherwise… In 2018, I got to join the Living Rivers campaign. I have found my place in the associative world, where I can make sense of what needs to be done, and can fight my own battles free of political ties. My role is only to advocate. I anticipate what political decisions might go very wrong for water and aquatic life, and I fight them. When I foresee better solutions, I push them onto the political agenda. [1] Inspired from the testimony of an NGO advocate, online interview, 08/02/2023
We are picking up member states’ broken pots. They are simply not doing their job right. They even saw the opportunity in the 2019 evaluation of the WFD, called the Fitness Check, to lower the objectives a little. They commissioned a separate report which they sent to the Commission, to gather evidence that some requirements of the WFD were not efficient. For instance, they hid behind the argument that the Directive would no longer be adequate to tackle issues such as climate change. But the text is already flexible enough to address new challenges if they arise! It does not stop you from going further or be more ambitious. We would only welcome that. If you think climate change is such a problem, treat it as an additional pressure. It allows you enough flexibility to deal with most of the concerns. Some of the issues they brought up in that report were very legitimate, I hear what they say about one-out-all-out principle. It is true, it does mask progress. But the solution that they proposed to get rid of it is not right. The goal of the principle is to make sure that we are tracking all the pressures and the system is healthy, including all the parameters. It has a value, if you are not looking at all the quality elements that means you might be missing a particular pressure there.
According to a WWF report, 90% of the 21 river basins studied in various EU countries will still be unhealthy by 2027. To make this dreadful number even worse, member states, industries, and certain lobbies, are constantly threatening the WFD with intentions to diminish its objectives. We fear that any revision of the WFD will give the opportunity for member states to give up their commitments to 2027. We therefore fully supported the Commission in 2019 in their decision to call the WFD still fit for purpose. If they had not done so, some member states could have concluded that the WFD is not even worth applying, that it is a waste of time, and thus proposed to draw something more efficient. But seeing how little dedication they show today in WFD implementation, does not bode well for the new proposal they would make!
In 2018, we celebrated the launch of the Living Rivers Europe campaign. One of the key elements of the NGO campaign was to bring the voice of Europeans and citizens, and reveal that they do care about waters, they want their rivers, lakes and wetlands protected. We wanted to show that the EU WFD is the right tool because in some cases it was stronger than national legislation. This campaign sustained a coalition of NGOs, which joined their voices together for a stronger call for a better implementation of the WFD. Thanks to the coalition, the campaign obtained great visibility, and developed the awareness of the public on water quality issues. It was concluded by the decision of the Commission to consider the WFD fit for purpose, which was a relief for all the campaign participants: the 2027 objectives are still high and strong, and member states are responsible for complying with them.
Truth is? I am exhausted. Sometimes, we win a battle. Other times, all the time and effort we put in collecting evidence of infringements from member states, and sending it to the Commission, is completely lost: there are very few follow ups to the EU Court of Justice, which many files do not even reach.
European Commission (2000). EU Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC)
European Commission (2019). FITNESS CHECK of the Water Framework Directive, Groundwater Directive, Environmental Quality Standards Directive and Floods Directive (SWD(2019) 439).
Paloniitty, T. (2016). The weser case: case c-461/13 bund v germany. Journal of Environmental Law, 28(1), 151–158. https://doi.org/10.1093/jel/eqv032
Pielke Jr, R. A. (2007). The honest broker: making sense of science in policy and politics. Cambridge University Press.
a project pointing the way forward in the global debate about water governance.
