The EU Water Framework Directive 2000/60/EC)
Introduction
Water is the driving force of all nature.
(Leonardo da Vinci, 1452-1519)
The purpose of this essay is to evaluate the success of the EU Water Framework Directive 2000/60/EC (WFD) to date and if this success is likely to continue or if it will improve and be more successful in the future.
The WFD officially titled; Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy (2000/60/EC), was introduced in late 2000 with the purpose of improving water quality in Europe and to unify existing legislation (Kaika, 2003a). The path to the WFD as we now know it was a long one. Taking the EU through a number of presidencies and the introduction of a treaty which would …show more content…
2003a). This initial proposal was welcomed and a more formal proposal was adopted in February 1997. According to the European Council (1997), the directive was to be adopted by December 1997 allowing 2 years for the Member States (MSs) to transpose the directive. Many disagreements about the directive, its Annexes and amendments ensued and this date was passed by without an end in sight.
The Council of Ministers (as it was known then – now known as the Council of the EU or the Council) wanted to resolve the WFD issue while they still had lone legislative power (this would change with the Treaty of Amsterdam coming into force) and according to Kaika (2003a) rushing to beat this deadline almost resulted in the WFD losing its original purpose. This directive was not passed and the back and forth continued between the Parliament, Commission and …show more content…
The decision was made however to pause procedures until after the European Parliament Elections in the summer of 1999. This effectively ensured that there would be a co-decision between the Parliament and Council and gave the Commission and Council time to study the amendments proposed by the Parliament. The Commission (1999) published their decisions and rejected 47 of the proposed amendments, accepting many and proposing alterations to others. The Council opposed and overturned many of the amendments, resulting in the directive appearing to be very much like the directive in June 1988. The Council wanted to “request that member states ‘make an effort’ to achieve good water status” (Kaika, 2003a). They deleted the requirement of full cost pricing and returned the proposed time to reach good water status to 34 years. These changes along with changes to the number of substances classified as dangerous substances were approved and caused a strong response in opposition to the new draft of the
Water is the driving force of all nature.
(Leonardo da Vinci, 1452-1519)
The purpose of this essay is to evaluate the success of the EU Water Framework Directive 2000/60/EC (WFD) to date and if this success is likely to continue or if it will improve and be more successful in the future.
The WFD officially titled; Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy (2000/60/EC), was introduced in late 2000 with the purpose of improving water quality in Europe and to unify existing legislation (Kaika, 2003a). The path to the WFD as we now know it was a long one. Taking the EU through a number of presidencies and the introduction of a treaty which would …show more content…
2003a). This initial proposal was welcomed and a more formal proposal was adopted in February 1997. According to the European Council (1997), the directive was to be adopted by December 1997 allowing 2 years for the Member States (MSs) to transpose the directive. Many disagreements about the directive, its Annexes and amendments ensued and this date was passed by without an end in sight.
The Council of Ministers (as it was known then – now known as the Council of the EU or the Council) wanted to resolve the WFD issue while they still had lone legislative power (this would change with the Treaty of Amsterdam coming into force) and according to Kaika (2003a) rushing to beat this deadline almost resulted in the WFD losing its original purpose. This directive was not passed and the back and forth continued between the Parliament, Commission and …show more content…
The decision was made however to pause procedures until after the European Parliament Elections in the summer of 1999. This effectively ensured that there would be a co-decision between the Parliament and Council and gave the Commission and Council time to study the amendments proposed by the Parliament. The Commission (1999) published their decisions and rejected 47 of the proposed amendments, accepting many and proposing alterations to others. The Council opposed and overturned many of the amendments, resulting in the directive appearing to be very much like the directive in June 1988. The Council wanted to “request that member states ‘make an effort’ to achieve good water status” (Kaika, 2003a). They deleted the requirement of full cost pricing and returned the proposed time to reach good water status to 34 years. These changes along with changes to the number of substances classified as dangerous substances were approved and caused a strong response in opposition to the new draft of the