WFD

Western Wales River Basin District
Evaluation of the European legislation throughout the time under the Water Framework Directive

SCHOOL OF THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT

RIVER BASIN MANAGEMENT

7005BEPG

STUDENT:

Sergio Arenas Gayoso

1
MSc WEE-7005BEPG River Basin Management School Of The BE - JMU 2011-12


Index

Introduction Pag. 3

The WFD in the WWRBD Pag. 3

Prior to the implementation of the WFD Pag. 4

The significance of the WFD Pag. 5

Current monitoring in WWRBD Pag. 6

Influence of the WFD on the improvement Pag. 7
of water quality in the WWRBD

How the WFD has influenced in the European legislation Pag. 8
related to water quality

Repercussion Pag. 13

Conclusion Pag. 14

References Pag. 15

2


Introduction

The Western Wales River Basin District (WWRBD) represents an area over 16.000
km2 with a population of about 1.5 million people. With renowned lakes and rivers
and coastal waters offering a wide range of activities both commercial and
recreational, this district is predominantly rural in nature. However, it is increasingly
suffering from different sources of pollution such as those which come from the
agriculture, construction, forestry and tourism. Furthermore, all water bodies also
may be at risk from physical modification (EA, 2008).

Even though Wales accounted with legislation for water since Victorian times (Water
UK, 2007), a number of European laws have taken over the careful of these waters
during the last few years. Some of them, however, will be repealed by 2013 by the
Water Framework Directive (WFD), which provides a common framework for all the
European countries and which has been designed to improve and integrate the way
water bodies are managed (Griffiths, 2002) with the objective of achieving good
qualitative and quantitative status of all water bodies by 2015.

Thus, having chosen the WWRBD, the impacts (both positive and negative) European
legislation has had on water quality in a historical, present and future context have
been assessed, with particular emphasis on the effectiveness of the WFD in this River
Basin.

The WFD in the WWRBD

The Directive 2000/60/EC or in other words, the WFD was adopted in 2000 by the
European Union in order to establish the management, protection and analysis of
water bodies and aquatic ecosystems as well as setting out the targets to achieve in
a 15 years period (Irabien et al, 2008). In addition, the WFD has also set the
procedures and the organization about the management of these water bodies at the
river basin level (Ireson et al, 2006).

3


Overall, within the EU members and in particular for the WWRBD, the WFD has
introduced important changes related to environmental principles. Thus, due to the
Directive, it becomes necessary to recognize the aquatic biota for assessing the
water bodies and also it has established ecological objectives taking into account the
European legislation (Logan and Furse, 2002). Therefore the water bodies need to
achieve a good ecological status, so to speak, without significant changes from initial
conditions (EC, 2003).

Another important principle is the fact of public participation as is an issue seen as
necessary for a transparency philosophy (Alvarez-Guerra et al, 2010).

It could be said that, regarding past, this Directive it is marking a new period in the
development of European water legislation and this is basically because of its
complete approach to river basin and water management (Kaika, 2003).

Considering a first period started in 1975, based on the protection of drinking water
and its quality standards, a second one (1991) focus on emission levels as a
technique of achieve quality standards (Urban Wastewater Management Directive
and the Directive for Integrated Pollution and Prevention Control), the WFD has been
considered crucial as it introduces monitoring as the most important tool for the
Dirctive’s success (Martins et al, 2009).

Therefore, regarding WWRBD, the fact of addressing the implications this Directive
has on monitoring requirements has meant a great challenge. Thus, the transition
from well-known, controlled and established monitoring networks to those that
involve a holistic approach to water management is not being an easy task.

Prior to the implementation of the WFD

Before the WFD was implemented, Wales in general and WWRBD in particular have
had the monitoring process divided into three different management points of view:
quality, quantity and physical structure.

4


Since 1970, water bodies have been monitored with the General Quality Assessment
(GQA) which consists of monthly spot monitoring on stretches of water with flows
over 1 m3/s (EA, 1997).
Thus, during the 1990’s and 2006, thousands of sites received grading and were
monitored for chemistry under the GQA in the WWRB (DEFRA, 2007). From 2006
on, the GQA and the WFD were applied concurrently. In 2011, the Environment
Agency monitored only for the WFD (EA, 2012).

Apart from the implementation of the GQA, another scoring process has taken part.
It is known as BMWP so that set a biological classification system according to the
sensitivity to pollution (Logan, 2002). This process, however, is nowadays calls River
Invertebrate Prediction and Classification System (RIVPCS). Only in 2000, about
5000 sites were monitored with this system whilst this number dropped to less than
3000 when conducted with GQA and WFD concurrently (Collins et al, 2012).

The Fish Identification Scheme (FIS) was adopted in 1994 so that investigate quality
of rivers (Logan, 2002)

It is seems that, before the WFD, there were so many different systems for
monitoring and managing but without an integrated approach. It meant, as Logan
(2002) stated, that the networks offered poor information about the interactions
among fundamental aspects in management such as water quality, quantity and
physical structure. Thus, the change in approach, several technical challenges
required to be overcome regarding monitoring due to the WFD (UKTAG, 2005).

The significance of the WFD

In 2006, the WFD was implemented in the WWRBD. Even though it seems relatively
recent, the first cycle in river basin planning has been already done and completed
and it is also feasible and helpful to control the progress that was made in monitoring
since the Directive has been working during the last years.

Thus, it is clear how important is monitoring for the success of both the WFD and the
WWRBD in this case.

5


With the WFD an integral and complete overview of the water bodies will be carried
out as the monitoring process is supposed to be more detailed and has wider
objectives with regard to the past.

It is worth to mention that the WFD has implemented three kind of monitoring:
surveillance (in order to investigate the overall waters status either in a catchment or
sub-catchment), operational (to evaluate whether the water bodies at risk previously
defined with the surveillance monitoring, fail or not the WFD objectives) and
investigative (further investigation will be required in case of unknown reasons for
failing good status) (EC, 2000).

However, as the WFD has set out different objectives it has brought about different
number and intensity of sampling as well as different locations (Artiola and Warrick,
2004). In fact, for each location, different monitoring may be required.

On the other hand, the Directive fails when it needs to define the method of judging
risk. Thus, neither the WFD nor the documents which go with it explain how to do it,
which leaves unclear many questions (M3, 2011).

Therefore, the evaluation of risk depends on expert judgment and high level of
understanding of the processes that establishes the status of the water bodies (EC,
2003). This is an important issue because it may influence frequencies and number
of monitoring stations, in other words, it becomes necessary the specification of what
levels of risk are required and theirs precision as it may mean little cost effective
approach (EC, 2000).

Current monitoring in WWRBD

In 2007, data from surveillance and operational monitoring in the UK were submitted
to the EC. The data and the RBMP for the WWRBD are useful in order to review the
monitoring networks.

The principal problems identified in this River Basin are diffuse pollution from
agricultural sources and point source pollution from the water industry (EA, 2009). In

6


fact, currently monitoring is used to confirm failures and their reasons for failing. It
also identifies measures (EA, 2012b). Even though the WFD allows inferring
information from water bodies with similar characteristics it is still not clear where
and when can be done. Thus, in this part of Wales there is a lack of information
about the decisions are both reached and informed.

Influence of the WFD on the improvement of water quality in the WWRBD

Regarding the above and according to the EA (2008) an important number of
environmental outcomes are to be achieved with the implementation of the WFD in
the WWRD.

Thus, by encourage a better rural land management the drinking water resources will
be protected and groundwater will suffer less pollution.

The directive also aims to reduce the impact of building and transport on the water
bodies in order to protect and restores water habitats and avoid surface water runoff
and therefore preserve drinking water supplies and bathing areas. It will be
supposed to be carried out by using Sustainable Drainage Systems, Sustainable
management of surface water as the WFD considers both pressures on water bodies
and pollutants in groundwater.

Another point is the fact of securing amounts of water, making sure the water
environment is not degraded as a result of growing population which will bring about
investigations in case of impact of abstractions in identified water bodies.

The WFD tries to improve wildlife habitats by removing, for example, barriers to
migratory fish and eels. It is also worth to mention that, in order to meet Natura 2000
objectives by 2015, code of conduct as well as settlement of marine protected areas
along with plans and programs on invasive non-native species are to be
implemented.

Finally, by addressing localized sources of pollution, especially those which come
from industrial and agricultural sources is expected to avoid and protect water

7


supplies from further pollution, emphasizing the importance of organic pollution and
excess of phosphorous.

With all these actions the achievement of significant outcomes for the environment
across the WWRBD by 2015 will be allowed. Thus, the results of this works will
mean an improvement in 27.7% of rivers (by length), achieving good or high status.
This actually represents 1027 km of river, over 3326 km2 of coast, 11 km2 of estuary,
1.15 km2 of lakes (12100 km2 of aquifer outcrop in total). 24 groundwater bodies with
good status are also expected by 2015. However, around 14% of natural rivers (by
length) have yet to be assessed.

Thus, to date, the main achievements in the WWRBD under the WFD are the
following (EA, 2009):

13% of surface waters are going to improve for at least one biological, chemical or
physical element. It means an improvement of 900 km of the river network. Yet, 59%
of assessed surface will be at good biological status by 2015.

On the other hand, 36% of surface waters are going to be at good or better
ecological status (Charts 1-4) and 60 % of groundwater will be at good status by
2015.

How the WFD has influenced in the European legislation related to water
quality

Starting with the Bathing Water Directive (BWD), and in order to follow an
alphabetical order, this has established the limits of microbiological and chemical
values in order to protect the public health in bathing waters which are then classified
into four categories such as excellent, good, sufficient and poor.

Obviously, it seems that such classification will be an easier and better way to
understand how is the quality of the water bodies which is something used to be
unnoted. At least there will be a target to achieve since the bathing water must be
“sufficient” by 2015. Thus, after generating the first list of bathing waters under this
Directive in 2008, the water profiles for all bathing waters was established in 2011
(EA, 2009b).

8


Charts 1-4. Ecological status/potential of surface water bodies now and in 2015 (1-2);
Biological status/potential of surface water bodies now and in 2015 (3-4) (EA, 2009).

1 29% of water bodies are at least good 2
36% of water bodies will be at least
ecological status/potential now good ecological status/potential in 2015

High Good Moderate Poor Bad High Good Moderate Poor Bad
6% 0%0% 5% 0%0%
29% 36%

65% 59%

41% of assessed water bodies are at 49% of assessed water bodies will be at
3 4 least good biological status in 2015
least good biological status now

High Good Moderate Poor Bad High Good Moderate poor Bad

11% 1% 10% 9% 1% 10%

31%
37% 41% 49%

Furthermore, the directive has been useful for water company discharges with
regard to sewage works and therefore, it has meant and improvement for the
environment as well.

Apart from that and according to the EA (2010), the target may be achieved by 2015
since 90% of all bathing water in the WWRBD met the standards required for water
quality in 2010. However, throughout the current year (2012) a monitoring program
will be carried out for a four year classification (EA, 2009b).

On the other hand, the BWD needs to be simpler and should be adapted to the
experience and developments its implementation has caused and also it would be
necessary that this Directive ensured compatibility with the WFD (DEFRA, 2002).

Next directive is Biocidal Products Directive which may provide a high level of
protection for people, animals and the environment from the presence of biocide
products in water (EA, 2009b).

9


Even though this Directive was implemented on the WWRBD in 2001, the review of
the list with around 800 defined active substances has not been completed yet which
has led to delay the review period expected to finish by 2014. Therefore, it means
that from 2001 to nowadays, everyone may continue to market biocide products
containing such existing active substances (Businesslink, 2010).

The Dangerous Substances Directive, basically aims either to prevent or reduce
toxic substances (classified into two lists depending whether they are highly toxic –
list I- or less severe –list II-) in surface waters.

A positive impact may be related to the fact that it becomes necessary a greater
control of this kind of substances in water which is highly required in the WWRBD as
the waters would meet the existing standards of this Directive but might not meet the
new standards once the WFD takes over the DSD by the end of 2012 (EA, 2009b).

Maybe, one of the most relevant legislation in water quality under the effects of the
WFD is the Drinking Water Directive (DWD). The current Directive (98/83/CE)
protects public health by making sure that the drinking water meets the standards
established for both drinking and use in food and drink manufacture.

Overall, the DWD has a significant impact on the companies of water services since
they have had to improve their techniques and methods in order to supply drinking
water with good quality standards (Kramer, 2000). It could be said that, due to
amount of waste water being used for drinking water before the 80’s there was an
increasingly concern with the entering of bacteria and toxic substances into the
network (CEC, 1980).

Thus, in the WWRBD in particular, the drinking water has improved substantially
between 1990 and 2002 thanks to the guideline set out by this Directive (Kramer,
2000). However, according to the Drinking Water Inspectorate (DWI) (2011), further
improvements are required during the following years as 28% of the samples taken
from consumers taps were of suspect quality, considering the DWD standards and
14% of them showed a potential hazard to human health due to the E.coli.

Another Directive is the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive. So to speak,
authorities are responsible for assessing proposals which may have significant

10


impacts on water bodies and therefore accomplish with the environmental objectives
settled (EA, 2009b).

Because projects permissions are under the Town and Country Planning
Regulations 1999 in Wales, this might lead to delays in many projects as they should
be supervised by experts which is positive unless there were either political interests,
with a consequently loss of objectivity, or private companies which would increase
the budget of the project.

On the other hand, it becomes necessary an environmental control in order to both
prevent and minimize the risk of environmental impacts in the water bodies caused
in the past but with influence now and in the future.

With the Freshwater Fish Directive is not only to be protected the biodiversity in both
running and still waters but also those water bodies which are considered as suitable
for sustaining fishing, setting physical and chemical minimal values, at least until
2013 since the WFD will take over this Directive.

Since this Directive established the quality criteria such as guidelines, analysis
methods and frequency for sampling (in those water classified by DEFRA), it has led
to an improvement in the management and quality of the waters in the WWRBD.
However it could be affected by the WFD in case of new techniques, methods and
referred values were set, something that will not be unnoted by the stakeholders as
for example industries and sewage treatment plants that discharge to the designated
waters (EA, 2009b).

The Directive which was created in order to protect groundwater from dangerous
substances was the Groundwater Directive.

However, even though this Directive could deal with this aspect, the WFD will take
over it in 2013 since there was a lack of understanding about how actually the
Groundwater Directive. Thus, prevention measures could exclude the consequences
of dangerous substances from authorized direct sewage if they cannot be prevented
from either a technic point of view (of designated authorities) or high cost of removal
methods.

11


The Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control Directive (IPPC), regarding water
quality, forces operators to have a permit and they must use best available
techniques to prevent emissions to water or, reduce them to an acceptable level (EA,
2009b).

This legislation has a positive aspect and helps deliver the WFD objectives to the
WWRBD in a number of ways, including, for example, objectives for priority
hazardous substances (cease or phase out discharges, emissions and losses) and
by minimizing other releases from major installations.

Another directive which has had a significant impact is the Nitrates Directive. It
protects water quality against nitrate pollution from agriculture. In Wales discrete
areas of land have been designated as Nitrate Vulnerable Zones (NVZ), where the
surface and groundwater bodies could contain 50 mg/l of nitrate. They must be
monitored every four years for eutrophication and nitrate levels (EA, 2009b).

Currently about 3% of land is designated as NVZ in the WWRBD. The next review is
expected to be implemented in 2013 (EA, 2011). However, 11% of the groundwater
bodies are at risk of failing to meet the WFD objectives due to nitrate pollution
(Rivett, 2007).

It seems that this directive benefits the public and water companies if high nitrate is a
problem in waters that are abstracted for drinking water. Where the ecology of the
waters is protected by a reduction in nitrates, the people who use those waters for
recreation, such as anglers, can benefit.

However it has brought problems as well as the amount and timing of application of
chemical fertilizer, manure and slurry to land in NVZs is tightly restricted. Besides,
farmers are required to keep detailed records and risk maps for their farms and they
would need economic support as the compliance with the ND could be costly (WAG,
2011). So many farmers could not meet the norm. In fact, In May 2009 the UK was
granted derogation on the Nitrate Directive allowing some farmers to increase the
amount of manure spread on their land (WAG, 2011b).

It is worth to mention the Shellfish Waters Directive as it establishes the quality
parameters to support shellfish life and growth setting physical, chemical and
microbiological water quality requirements.

12


As in the freshwater fish Directive, the guidelines, analysis methods and frequency
for sampling could be affected by the WFD in the WWRBD due in 2013, which may
complicate the processes in some cases and lead to misunderstanding in others
(EA, 2009b).

Finally, the Surface Water Abstraction Directives is focus on the quality of drinking
water which comes from water abstracted in the surface (for example, rivers, lakes,
etc.), making sure it satisfies certain guidelines before the water is put into public

The WFD has affected positively in combination with this Directive, thus, by using the
Drinking Water Protected Areas, about 500 have been established for surface waters
in WWRBD (EA, 2009b). In fact, this Directive may be supported by the Urban
Waste Water Treatment Directive in the sense that a higher control of waste water
from homes and industry are required in order to identify those areas which may be
affected by direct discharges.

Repercussion

Even though it was released a draft for the water legislation by the EC in 1996 it did
not alter the fact that the response for radical changes implied several problems at
political, economic and social levels which obviously may affect the way objectives
are reached (Woolcock, 1998).

Thus, having seen how the WFD has impacted on the European legislation already
implemented in this river basin, it is no surprise that, stakeholders and the
authorities, found it very complex to deal with these changes and implement them
into their water policies (Swyngedouw, 2000). In fact, the WFD recasts the
relationship between political, physical and administrative limits, turning this into a
complicated issue.

Therefore, according to Kaika (2003), both the Chemical Industry and the
Agricultural Sector have been heavily affected from three points of view: hazardous
substances (the need to control them), cost-incurring and short implementation

13


timeline which has also affected negatively to Local Authorities. Hence, the industry
may accept that diffusion pollution is a waste of resources but also a loss to the
farms, but it thinks that this problem should be faced by educating farmers (about
pesticides use) and with primary resource management (Tompkins, 2000).

Conclusion

Even though Wales accounted with legislation for water since Victorian times, a
number of European laws have taken over the careful of these waters during the last
few years.
Some of them, however, will be repealed by 2013 by the WFD in order to meet
rigorous objectives so that achieve a good quality status for all the water bodies in
the WWRBD.

Thus, the WFD has meant significant changes to the way the river basins in general
and the WWRBD in particular are monitored and managed as new concepts have
been introduced. Hence, every water body needs to be monitored, no matter the
type, with a more complete and holistic approach and taking into account the cost
effectiveness. Unfortunately, a number of water bodies have been identified as being
at risk of failing the Directive’s objectives. It brings about the fact that there is
required expert judgment which could affect the monitoring process which may imply
different methods in different areas.

However, there is no balance in biological monitoring hence more research should
be done on the relationships between stressors and biotic response.

Two more important concepts have been incorporated with the WFD: more detailed
ecological targets related to anthropogenic impacts and the innovative idea of public
participation in decision taking related to the transparency principle.

On the other hand, the fact of changing current legislation has brought about
important problems mainly for the industry (Chemical) and the Agriculture sector as
well as Local Authorities which have found it difficult to deal with it in a relatively
short time.

14


References

 Alvarez-Guerra, M, Canis, L, Voulvoulis, N, Viguri, J.R, Linkov, I (2010) Prioritization
of sediment management alternatives using stochastic multicriteria acceptability
analysis. Science of the Total Environment 408, pp. 4354-4367.
 Artiola, J, Warrick, A (2004) Sampling and data quality objectives for environmental
monitoring. In: Artiola, J, Pepper, I, Brusseau, M (Eds.), Environmental Monitoring
and Characterization, pp. 11-27.
 Businesslink (2010) Available at:
<http://www.businesslink.gov.uk/bdotg/action/ruDetail?itemId=1084825159&type=RE
GUPDATE> [Accessed 26 October 2011].
 Collins, A, Ohandja, DG, Hoare, D, Voulvoulis, N (2012) Implementing the Water
Framework Directive: a transition from established monitoring networks in England
and Wales. Environmental science & policy 17, pp. 49-61.
 Council of the European Communities (CEC) (1980) Directive relating to the quality
of water intended for human consumption (80/778/EEC). Official Journal L229.
 DEFRA (2002) Proposal for a directive of the European parliament and of the council
to revise directive 76/160/EEC concerning the quality of bathing water partial
regulatory impact assessment. Available at:
<http://archive.defra.gov.uk/environment/quality/water/waterquality/bathing/document
s/partial-ria.pdf> [Accessed 26 October 2011].
 DEFRA (2007). Available at:
<http://archive.defra.gov.uk/evidence/statistics/environment/inlwater/iwquality.htm>
[Accessed 06 February 2012].
 Drinking Water Inspectorate (DWI) (2011) Letter to Minister – Wales. Available at:
<http://dwi.defra.gov.uk/about/annual-report/2010/index.htm> [Accessed 02
November 2011].
 Environment Agency (EA) (1997) Environment Agency Programme for the Monitoring
of Water Quality. Part 2. Design of Monitoring Programmes for General Quality
Assessments.
 Environment Agency (EA) (2008) Water for life and livelihoods. A consultation on the
Draft River Basin Management Plan Western Wales River Basin District.
 Environment Agency (EA) (2009) Water for Life and Livelihoods: River Basin
Management Plans Western Wales River Basin District.
 Environment Agency (EA) (2009b). Water for life and livelihoods. River Basin
Management Plan Western Wales River Basin District. Annex F: Mechanisms for
action.

15


 Environment Agency (EA) (2010) Bathing Waters working in partnership in England
and Wales. Available at:
<http://publications.environment-agency.gov.uk/PDF/GEHO1010BTDR-E-E.pdf>
[Accessed 23 November 2011].
 Environment Agency (EA) (2011) Nitrates Directive. Available at:
<http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/business/regulation/31901.aspx> [Accessed
23 November 2011].
 Environment Agency (EA) (2012). Available at:
<http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/research/planning/34383.aspx>
[Accessed 6 February 2012].
 Environment Agency (EA) (2012b) Available at:
<http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/research/planning/33106.aspx > [Accessed
07 February 2012].
 European Commission (EC) (2000) Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliment
and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for community action
in the field of water policy. Official Journal of the European Communities.
 European Commission (EC) (2003) Common Implementation Strategy for the Water
Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) Guidance Document No. 7: Monitoring under the
Water Framework Directive. Office for Official Publications of the European
Communities, Luxembourg, ISBN: 92-894-5127-0, ISSN: 1725-1087.
 Griffiths, M (2002) The European Water Framework Directive: An Approach to
Integrated River Basin Management. European Water Management Online Official
Publication of the European Water Association (EWA). Available at:
<http://www.ewaonline.de/journal/2002_05.pdf > [Accessed 19 October 2011].
 Irabien, M.J, Cearreta, A, Leorri, E, Gómez, J, Viguri, J (2008) A 130 year record of
pollution in the Suances estuary (southern Bay of Biscay): implications for
environmental management. Marine Pollution Bulletin 56, pp. 1719-1727.
 Ireson, A, Makropoulos, C, Maksimovic, C (2006) Water resources modelling under
data scarcity: coupling MIKE BASIN and ASM groundwater model. Water Resources
Management 20, pp. 567-590.
 Kaika, M (2003) The Water Framework Directive: a new directive for a changing
social, political and economic European framework. European Planning Studies 11,
pp. 299.
 Kramer, L (2000) EC Environmental Law. Sweet and Maxwell: London.
 Logan, P (2002) Ecological quality assessment of rivers and integrated catchment
management in England and Wales. Journal of Limnology 60, pp. 25.

16


 Logan, P, Furse, M (2002) Preparing for the European Water Framework Directive-
making the links between habitat and aquatic biota. Aquatic Conservation: Marine
and Freshwater Ecosystems 12.
 M3 (2011) Monitoring Data Assessment Report: Application of Integrative Modelling
and Monitoring Approaches for River Basin Management Evaluation. Available at:
<http://www.life-m3.eu/fileadmin/M3-
life/downloads/guidelines/Monitoring_Data_Assessment.pdf > [Accessed 08
February 2012].
 Martins, F.A, Janeiro, J, Gabriel, S, Venancio, A, Neves, R (2009) Integrated
monitoring of South Portugal water bodies: a methodology towards WFD. Water
Science and Technology 60, pp. 1979-1988.
 Rivett, M.O, Smith, J.W.N, Buss, S.R, Morgan, P (2007) Nitrate occurrence and
attenuation in the major aquifers of England and Wales, Quarterly Journal of
Engineering Geology and Hydrogeology, 40, pp. 335-352.
 Swyngedouw, E (2000) Authoritarian governance, power and the politics of rescaling,
Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 18, pp. 63-76.
 Tompkins, J (2000) Diffuse Pollution, in Water Framework Directive Conference, The
Barbican, London, 7 November 2000: ice magazine, EA and Water UK.
 UK Technical Advisory Group on the Water Framework Directive (2005) Guidance on
the Selection of Monitoring Sites and Building Monitoring Networks for Surface
Waters and Groundwater. TAG Work Programme 12 a) Monitoring Networks.
 Water UK (2007) Water companies and the law. England and Wales. Available at:
<http://www.water.org.uk/home/policy/positions/legislation> [Accessed 16 November
2011].
 Welsh Assembly Government (WAG) (2011) Press Release. NVZ grant helps Welsh
farmers. Available at:
<http://wales.gov.uk/newsroom/environmentandcountryside/2011/110128nvzgrant/?l
ang=en&ts=1> [Accessed 09 November 2011].
 Welsh Assembly Government (WAG) (2011b) Information for Occupiers. Available at:
<http://wales.gov.uk/topics/environmentcountryside/epq/waterflooding/nitratezones/o
ccupierinformation/?lang=en> [Accessed 09 November 2011].
 Woolcock, M (1998) Social capital and economic development: toward a theoretical
synthesis and policy framework, Theory and Society, 27, pp. 151-208.

17

WFD

Recomendados

Recomendados

Más contenido relacionado

La actualidad más candente

La actualidad más candente (20)

Destacado

Destacado (16)

Similar a WFD

Similar a WFD (20)

WFD