The potential of using the ecosystem approach for WFD implementation
Vlachopoulou, M.1, Coughlin, D.1, Forrow, D.2, Kirk, S.2, Logan, P. 2, and Voulvoulis, N.1*
1. Imperial College London - 2. Environment Agency
ABSTRACT
The ecosystem approach provides a framework in decision making for looking at whole ecosystems
and the services they provide, to ensure that society can maintain a healthy and resilient natural
environment now and for future generations. Although not explicitly mentioned in the Water
Framework Directive (WFD), it appears as a promising concept to help its implementation. This is
based upon the assumption that there is a connection between WFD aims and objectives (incl. good
ecological status) and the realisation of several benefits from ecosystem services. In this paper,
methodological linkages between the ecosystem approach and the implementation of the WFD have
been reviewed and a framework that links WFD implementation to the ecosystem approach taking
into consideration all ecosystem services and water management objectives is presented. This
framework proposes reviewing individual River Basin Management Plan objectives, qualitatively
assessing how strong their link with individual ecosystem services is. With a focus on providing a
preliminary assessment of how the ecosystem approach could support future implementation of the
directive, the benefits of using this approach have been identified and discussed. Findings
demonstrate that the ecosystem approach has the potential to enrich WFD implementation and can
help regulators engage with the public with a focus on meaningful outcomes. It can also encourage
more systematic thinking as it can provide a consistent framework for identifying shared aims and
evaluating alternative water management scenarios and decision making. Allowing for a broad
consideration of the benefits, costs and tradeoffs that occur in each case, this approach can further
improve the economic argument of measures, and can also help restore the shift in focus on
legislative compliance towards one of delivering wider intent and aims of the WFD. In principle, the
Ecosystems approach has the potential to lead to a more holistic implementation for the WFD, in
line with the Directive’s spirit and high level goals.
INTRODUCTION
The Water Framework Directive (WFD) (2000/60/EC) introduced a legal framework to protect and
restore the water environment across Europe and ensure its long-term, sustainable use. It
establishes water management based on river basins, the natural geographical and hydrological unit,
and sets specific deadlines for Member States to protect aquatic ecosystems. The WFD is the most
substantial piece of water legislation ever produced by the European Commission, and is expected
to be the major driver for achieving sustainable management of water in the UK (Foundation for
Water Research, 2010). It requires Member States to prevent further deterioration, protect and to
enhance the status of water bodies through Programmes of Measures. Under article 4(1) of the
WFD, surface water bodies will usually be required to meet the standard of “good status”, whereby
both the ecological and chemical status of surface water bodies is at least good (Figure 1), and
achieve ‘good groundwater status’ (quality and quantity) for groundwater bodies, all by 2015
(European Parliament and Council, 2000).
The result of WFD implementation will be a sustainably managed water environment achieved by
taking due account of environmental, economic and social considerations (Foundation for Water
Research, 2010). In doing so, the Directive establishes innovative principles for water management,
1
including public participation in planning and economic approaches such as the recovery of the cost
of water services (European Commission, 2008a), and is regarded as the framework which covers all
aspects of management of the water environment, with its programmes of measures also including
measures required under related Directives such as the Urban Waste Water Treatment (UWWT)
Directive (91/271/EEC), the bathing Water Directive (76/160/EEC), and the Environmental Impact
Assessment Directive (85/337/EEC), among others.
The WFD’s economic requirements are a considerable administrative challenge for water
management, both methodologically and in terms of data (ESAWADI, 2011). There is an inherent
difficulty associated with assessing the value of environmental quality and therefore the benefits of
water management measures aimed at improving water body status. The need to better
communicate WFD outcomes and environmental improvements resulting from its implementation is
a considerable challenge, but due to the requirement for public participation and economic
justification, a necessity. Appropriate strategies need to be employed, often a time-consuming but
essential component of policy implementation (e.g. Article 14 of WFD).
Figure 1 – Overall status for surface water bodies (Source: Environment Agency, 2009)
Public engagement is an essential component of WFD implementation. However, support for WFD
implementation may often be regarded as an altruistic task (Everard, 2012), because the public may
not be able to appreciate the benefits of delivering its aims and how this affects their quality of life.
The importance of the WFD can best be communicated if it is shown how the benefits of
implementation and the impact of not doing so directly affect people’s lives (ability to fish, swim in
rivers or lakes, etc).
Ecosystem services, the benefits people obtain from ecosystems, have received a lot of attention in
recent years, for instance through the UN Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA) (2005) or The
Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) initiative of the European Commission (through the
European Environment Agency) (European Commission, 2008b). The ecosystem approach which
originated from the Convention on Biological Diversity provides a framework for looking at whole
ecosystems in decision making, and for valuing the ecosystem services they provide, to ensure that
society can maintain a healthy and resilient natural environment now and for future generations
(Defra, 2013). It is a way of looking at the natural environment throughout the decision making
2
process that helps to think about the way that the natural environment works as a system. In the UK,
the Ecosystems Approach Action Plan has defined the ecosystem approach as “A generic framework
for incorporating the holistic consideration of ecosystem services and their value into policy, plan
and decision making” (Defra, 2010). Ecosystem services therefore form part of the wider ecosystem
approach.
Though not explicitly mentioned in the WFD, the ecosystem approach and ecosystem services
assessment (ESA) appear as a promising concept and a practical framework to help its
implementation, respectively. This is based upon the assumption that there is a connection between
the aims and objectives of the WFD (Table 1) and the realisation of benefits from ecosystem services
(Figure 2). The ecosystem approach is linked with the delivery of the entire suite of WFD aims and
objectives and this holistic approach is considered in this study. One of the aspects of the WFD that
can be facilitated through the ecosystem approach is achieving ecological status, which is further
used as an example.
It is particularly significant that the implementation of the EU’s WFD differs from International
Guidance for Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) which embraced the language of
ecosystem services at a very early stage, whereas the first round of River Basin Planning for the WFD
did not, despite the two approaches having many other similarities.
Table 1 Aims and objectives of WFD articles 1, 4 and 7
Aims & Objectives
Article 1
Prevents
deterioration
and
enhances status of aquatic
ecosystems and with regard their
water
needs,
terrestrial
ecosystems
To promote the sustainable
consumption of water
To reduce pollution of waters
from priority substances
Article 4
Surface waters
Good ecological status
Good ecological potential
No deterioration in status
Article 7
Reduce level of purification of
drinking water
Good chemical status
Groundwater
Prevent and limit inputs of pollutants
Good quantitative status
Good chemical status
No deterioration
Reverse trends
Protected areas
Water treatment regime
Drinking water protected areas
Freshwater fish and shellfish
Ensures progressive reduction in
pollution of groundwater and
prevents further pollution
Contribute to mitigating the
effects of floods and droughts.
Bathing Waters
UWWTD
SACs
SPAs
3
Figure 2 – The potential link between environmental characteristics and ecosystem services in the WFD
In this paper, the methodological linkages between the ecosystem approach and the
implementation of the WFD are reviewed. With a focus on assessing the potential “added value” of
the approach in the WFD decision-making process, evidence from the literature is considered to
provide a preliminary assessment of how it could support future implementation. The possibility of
the WFD and the ecosystem approach acting in a complementary way is further explored.
4
RELATING WFD OUTCOMES TO ECOSYSTEM SERVICES
Much WFD surface water monitoring focuses on biological structure, with the requirements of the
WFD assessment schemes, as outlined in Annex II and V, predominantly relating to structural
elements rather than functional ones. Structural indicators focus on biological community
composition, quantity and distribution of abiotic resources, or the range, gradient, or conditions of
existence, such as temperature (Matthews 1982). The WFD aims to enhance the quality of the water
environment on the basis of ensuring that the structure is maintained or restored. Ecosystem
structure, functions and services are intricately linked, and in the process of using the ecosystem
approach in WFD implementation it is important to outline the nature of this relationship.
Ecosystem structure, functions and services: definitions and links
Definitions of ecosystem functions, much as with ecosystem services, vary in the literature.
Functions can indicate some capacity or capability of the ecosystem to do something that is
potentially useful to people (provide goods and services) (de Groot et al., 2002). In line with this
definition, Haines-Young and Potschin (2009) developed a ‘service cascade’ (Figure 3) that
summarises much of the logic that underlies the contemporary ecosystem service paradigm. In this
case there is a ‘production chain’ linking ecological structures and processes with elements of
human well-being, with a series of intermediate stages between them. According to the example
provided in the figure, woodlands may have the capacity (function) of slowing the passage of surface
water, and this function of the ecosystem has the potential of regulating the intensity of flooding.
Since this is something that humans find useful without it being a principal property of the
ecosystem in itself, Haines-Young and Potschin (2009) suggest that it is meaningful to separate the
capability of the system from the service that is delivered. Though simplified, it is nevertheless a
useful conceptual approach for understanding the links between ecosystems and people. Whether a
function is regarded as delivering a service depends on the spatial and temporal context, and on
social values. The degree to which an ecosystem service will provide benefits is also context
dependent and it may mean different things to different stakeholders. However, for greater
simplicity it can be said that ecosystem services are the benefits people obtain from ecosystems
(MEA, 2005).
Figure 3 – From ecosystem structure to derived benefits (Source: Haynes – Young and Potschin,
2009)
Alternatively, and making a more direct link between functions and services, most regulating and
supporting services (e.g. nutrient cycling) within the MEA are ecosystem functions. From another
5
perspective, ecosystem functions are often regarded as being internal processes of the ecosystem,
and functional indicators are measures of the rate, or relative importance, of a particular process
happening in an ecosystem such as the rates of production, respiration, and material or nutrient
cycling. Structural and functional components of ecosystems are elaborately linked and describe
different aspects of the same entity (Young et al., 2004), with the number and types of organisms
present at a site, for example, being dependent on functional processes. Moreover, many
ecosystem functions are responsible for maintaining ecosystem condition in a healthy state (e.g.
soils’ buffering capacity prevents acidification by SOX) (WRI, 2009).
The relationship between structure and function as expressed through measurements of structural
and functional indicators can take different forms. An ecosystem can theoretically respond in three
different ways to a human induced stressor (Matthews, 1982): changes to ecosystem structure
without changes in functional parameters, changes to ecosystem function without structural
changes, or changes to both structural and functional components. An example of the first case is
that, although species of a community may be lost, if the surviving species can perform the same
functions as the ones that were lost, no effect on ecosystem functionality will be seen (Matthews,
1982). Moreover, Nelson (2000) showed that there were differences between the
macroinvertebrate community’s structure downstream of a source of metal pollution from that
upstream, with no differences being found in leaf breakdown rates, a functional indicator of
ecosystem health. On the other hand, and considering the second possible response to human
stressors, a sub-lethal stress could alter process rates within an ecosystem, i.e. it could infer
functional changes, while leaving community structure unaltered (Matthews, 1982). These examples
demonstrate the importance of combining the use of functional and structural indicators as they
work in a complementary way, and that the WFD, which focuses on structural measurements, could
be enhanced through the complementary use of functional measures. There is therefore great scope
in exploring how the WFD and the ecosystem approach can be linked.
Linking WFD outcomes with ecosystem services
When relating WFD outcomes to ecosystem services, a major link comes down to the relationship
between WFD objectives and ecosystem functions which give rise to services, and in particular river
landscape functions and ecological river status. The presence or lack of ecologically intact
watercourses affects the availability of river landscape services/functions. This relationship is
currently more profound in the latter case, i.e. in terms of the impacts of failing to meet good
ecological status rather than the ecosystem benefits delivered through broad implementation of
environmental management through the WFD. This means that if human pressures result in
moderate/bad/poor WFD status for a certain water body, the impact will become apparent through
the absence of ecosystem services (for example, unsuitability of a water body for fishing, swimming,
and other recreational activities, reduction in its aesthetic value, or additional costs in service
delivery such as additional treatment cost to provide drinking water). On the other hand, if a water
body meets WFD objectives, being subject to only minor anthropogenic pressures, the significance
of compliance as well as the potential gains from further improvements may not be as easily
perceptible. At some point in the future, given that the status of water bodies will have improved
overall through the progression of WFD compliance, the positive link will become more apparent. In
other words, improving the status will result in greater ecosystem benefits.
An example of how the deterioration in water quality can directly affect ecosystems services is
provided in the case of the Danube River Basin (DRB) (EEB & WWF, 2008), Europe's second largest
river basin. The basin supports the supply of drinking water, agriculture, industry, fishing, tourism
and recreation, power generation, navigation and the end disposal of waste waters. These intensive
6
activities result in problems for water quality and quantity. These include organic pollution,
hydromorphological alterations (e.g. water and habitat continuity interruptions and
wetland/floodplain disconnection), hazardous substances pollution and nutrient pollution (Weller,
2009; Schmedtje, 2011). The strategic action plan of the Danube River Basin provided a conceptual
model illustrating the relationships between key water management problems at the time of its
drafting and primary water uses in the Danube River. This, for example, demonstrated that nutrient
pollution affected drinking water supply by increasing the cost of treatment, raising consumer
acceptance problems and degrading groundwater quality through nitrate contamination. In terms of
fisheries, the observed impact was a loss of sensitive species, and with regard to recreation, a loss of
benefits and opportunities was noted. Observations were accordingly made for the impact of
hazardous substances, microbiological contamination, growth of heterotrophic organisms, oxygen
depletion and the competition for available water on water uses (Task Force for the Environmental
Programme for the Danube River Basin, 1994).
The proposed framework
Linking the WFD to the ecosystem approach could be achieved by linking WFD objectives with
ecosystem services. This would include reviewing individual River Basin Management Plan (RBMP)
objectives, and qualitatively assessing how strong their link with individual ecosystem services is.
Such analysis can be very inclusive, taking into consideration all ecosystem services and water
management objectives. All these components brought together in a comprehensive and detailed
matrix can provide a basis for direct comparison of benefits and related services. The matrix is
presented in Table 2. It includes:
 Applying a scoring system from 0 to 3 to indicate the extent to which the achievement of a
specific objective could help deliver an ecosystem service. The scoring here is only illustrative
and subjective (Ideally collective opinion or mechanistic evidence could be used to develop
these scores), but nevertheless a realistic starting point for discussion. In this example a score of
3 is given when meeting an objective is strongly associated with the provision of an ecosystem
service, and 0 when such a correlation is not considered to exist. For example, achieving good
chemical status for groundwater supports the provision of fresh water and to a lesser extent
(but still substantially supports) the provision of food (score 2), but is less directly linked with
the provision of fibre and fuel, genetic resources, biochemicals, natural medicines and
pharmaceuticals.
 Evaluating whether an objective is a key intended indicator of a specific service. This relates to
whether water management objectives were originally perceived to relate to certain ecosystem
services, i.e. during their conception and design. An objective is either a key intended indicator
(shown in dark blue) or a possible indicator (light blue) for an ecosystem service. While, for
example, good ecological status of surface waters is a key indicator for freshwater and food, it is
judged as a possible indicator for enhancing genetic resources used for crop/stock breeding or
biotechnology. Some WFD objectives are directly related to ecosystem services, as, for example,
the objective of not requiring extra treatment of groundwater has a direct link with the
provisioning service (water). It is noted that, while linking the benefits of WFD compliance with
ecosystem services is particularly useful in the context of encouraging public participation,
working at the level of WFD objectives is also relevant from a policy and decision making
context. In this sense, the information provided by the proposed matrices could help inform
decision making by showing which water management objectives can best target ecosystem
services according to existing needs.
Keeping in mind that the interrelationships among environmental components are very intricate and
complex, the proposed approach only aims to provide a simple and conceptual overview to inform
7
the decision maker. This conceptual matrix has the advantage of being able to communicate
complex relationships with simplicity and clarity. It does not aim to be a decision making tool but a
method to help understand the levels of interactions between water management objectives and
ecosystem services, assisting therefore the decision maker to prioritise actions according to need
and availability of resources, and to identify trade-offs in a transparent process. Most WFD
objectives relate to freshwater provision that links with food production and prevention of
poisoning. This includes quality and quantity aspects. In many ways these are rather obvious (and
the basis of water management for many years). The presented framework however, allows other
additional ecosystem services to be identified. This could serve as a good check list for economic
assessments under the WFD.
8
Table 2 Linking WFD objectives with ecosystem services
Sustainable management and protection of water
Sustainable development planning?
Water demand management/ strategic water
availability
Climate change mitigation and adaptation
Defra and
corporate
contribute to mitigating the effects of floods and droughts.
ensures progressive reduction in pollution of groundwaters and
prevents further pollution
to reduce pollution of waters from priority substances;
to promote the sustainable consumption of water
wetland dependent on aquatic ecosystems
and with regard their water needs, terrestrial ecosystems and
shellfish waters
Prevents deterioration and enhances status of aquatic ecosystems
Aims
dir 76/464/EEC
Repealed directives
sampling drinking water
Art 7
Info exchange
Article 1
Drinking water
Repealed directives
Dang subs
SPAs
SACs
UWWTD
Bathing Waters
Freshwater fish and shellfish
Drinking water protected areas
No deterioration
Protected areas
Reverse trends
Good quantitative status
Prevent and limit inputs of pollutants
Groundwater
Good chemical status
No deterioration in status
Good ecological status
Good ecological potential
Surface waters
Art 7
Water treatment regime……..
Article 4
Reduce level of purification of drinking water
Benefits
Good chemical status
Services
Provisioning services
• Enough clean water for drinking
• Water for domestic use (cleaning, washing,
toilets etc)
• Enough water for irrigation
• Enough water for industry (manufacturing,
power etc- cooling, cleaning, products)
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Food (e.g. crops, fruit, fish, eating birds etc.) • Farmed food (or material to make drinks)
for people and animals which is grown or
raised by impacting the environment as little
as possible and where the beneficial effects
of wild plants and animals (Natural pest
control,
pollination)
in
farming
are
encouraged (Grains, vegetables, fruit, meat,
milk, farmed seafood, sport shooting)
• Wild food (or material to make drinks) for
taken
from
the
environment
without
impacting natural communities of plants and
animals and the places that they live (nuts,
berries/
fruit,
mushrooms/fungi,
fish,
shellfish, seaweed, seafood, rabbits)
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Fibre and fuel (e.g. timber, wool, reeds, etc.) • Cultivated materials used for fuel, building
or manufacturing etc which are grown by
impacting the environment as little as
possible and where the beneficial effects of
wild plants and animals (Natural pest control,
pollination) in farming are encouraged
(Timber, paper, twines, ropes, charcoal,
fuelwood, other biofuels).
• Wild materials used for fuel, building or
manufacturing
etc
taken
from
the
environment
without
impacting
natural
communities of plants and animals and the
places that they live (Sand, thatch, straw,
waxes, dyes and gums, charcoal, fuelwood,
medical materials)
Genetic resources (used for crop/stock • Genetic variability required to ensure
breeding and biotechnology)
resilience and therefore survival of beneficial
plants, animals and fungi.
• Genes taken from environment used to
ensure future resilience in cultivated plants,
animals and fungi.
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
medicines, • Cultivated materials used to extract
biochemicals,
natural
medicines,
pharmaceuticals
and
other
medicinal
substances (lavender and other essential
oils, anti-cancer drugs etc)
• Wild materials materials used to extract
biochemicals,
natural
medicines,
pharmaceuticals
and
other
medicinal
materials (perfumes, oils, anti-aging drugs,
anti-cancer drugs)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
0
Fresh water
Biochemicals,
pharmaceuticals
natural
Ornamental resources (e.g. shells, flowers, Flowers, plants, animals, shells etc taken
etc.)
from the environment without impacting
natural communities of plants and animals
and the places that they live.
Energy harvesting (non MA)
Hydropower, thermal power, wave power,
wind power without significantly impacting
natural communities of plants and animals
and the places that they live.
Regulatory services
RBM objective is key intended indicator for this service:
RBM objective is possible intended indicator for this service:
Achievement of objective could help deliver this service (1: lesser extent to 3: large extent)
9
(cont.)
Sustainable management and protection of water
Sustainable development planning?
Water demand management/ strategic water
availability
Climate change mitigation and adaptation
Defra and
corporate
contribute to mitigating the effects of floods and droughts.
ensures progressive reduction in pollution of groundwaters and
prevents further pollution
to reduce pollution of waters from priority substances;
to promote the sustainable consumption of water
ecosystems and wetland dependent on aquatic ecosystems
ecosystems and with regard their water needs, terrestrial
shellfish waters
Prevents deterioration and enhances status of aquatic
Aims
dir 76/464/EEC
Repealed directives
sampling drinking water
Art 7
Info exchange
Article 1
Drinking water
Repealed directives
Dang subs
SPAs
SACs
UWWTD
Bathing Waters
Freshwater fish and shellfish
Drinking water protected areas
No deterioration
Protected areas
Reverse trends
Good quantitative status
Prevent and limit inputs of pollutants
Groundwater
Good chemical status
No deterioration in status
Good ecological status
Good ecological potential
Surface waters
Art 7
Water treatment regime……..
Article 4
Reduce level of purification of drinking water
Benefits
Good chemical status
Services
Regulatory services
Clean air free of noxious chemicals and
particulates.
2
1
2
2
2
0
0
0
0
(local • Capture and storage of carbon dioxide and
GHG other green house gases
• Prevention of local heat island effects.
• Shelter from wind and rain (people,
crops/livestock and buildings)
• Regulation of local weather
• Protection from sun
2
1
2
2
2
0
0
0
0
Water regulation (timing and scale of run-off, • Enough clean water for drinking
flooding, etc.)
• Water for domestic use (cleaning, washing,
toilets etc)
• Enough water for irrigation
• Enough water for industry (manufacturing,
power etc- cooling, cleaning, products)
3
2
3
2
2
3
0
3
0
3
2
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
Air quality regulation
Climate
regulation
temperature/precipitation,
sequestration, etc)
Natural hazard
protection)
regulation
(i.e.
storm • Reduced drought risk
• Reduced flood risk
• Reduced storm risk
• Reduced erosion risk
Pest regulation
• Reduced incidence of pest and nuisance
plants and animals (e.g. rats, aphids, weeds,
aggressive plants etc).
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
Disease regulation
• Reduced instance of disease
1
1
1
1
1
0
2
2
2
Erosion regulation
• Preservation of fertile soils from water and
wind
• Preservation of natural flood defence
structures
• Protection of property
• Protection of life (from landslides etc)
2
2
2
0
0
2
0
2
2
Water purification and waste treatment
• Clean water.
• Preservation of fertile soils
• Prevention of human and animal poisoning
and other health effects of pollution
• Trapping pollutants
3
2
3
3
3
3
2
3
2
Pollination
• Pollination of crops and natural vegetation
• Seed dispersal
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
Noise and light regulation (non MA)
• Reduced noise and light pollution from
industrial
and
building
sites,
roads,
entertainment districts, airports etc
Cultural services
10
(cont.)
Achievement of objective could help deliver this service (1:lesser extent to 3:large extent)
1 to 3
Sustainable management and protection of water
Sustainable development planning?
Water demand management/ strategic water
availability
Climate change mitigation and adaptation
Defra and
corporate
contribute to mitigating the effects of floods and droughts.
ensures progressive reduction in pollution of groundwaters and
prevents further pollution
to reduce pollution of waters from priority substances;
to promote the sustainable consumption of water
ecosystems and wetland dependent on aquatic ecosystems
ecosystems and with regard their water needs, terrestrial
shellfish waters
Prevents deterioration and enhances status of aquatic
Aims
dir 76/464/EEC
Repealed directives
sampling drinking water
Art 7
Info exchange
Article 1
Drinking water
Repealed directives
Dang subs
SPAs
SACs
UWWTD
Bathing Waters
Freshwater fish and shellfish
Drinking water protected areas
No deterioration
Protected areas
Reverse trends
Good quantitative status
Prevent and limit inputs of pollutants
Groundwater
Good chemical status
No deterioration in status
Good ecological status
Good ecological potential
Surface waters
Art 7
Water treatment regime……..
Article 4
Reduce level of purification of drinking water
Benefits
Good chemical status
Services
Cultural services
Cultural heritage
• Local character
• Archaeological interest
• Historic mills, ports, landscapes
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
1
Recreation and tourism
• Recreation and tourism derived from
natural and semi-natural environment (incl.
Walking, camping, swimming, fishing,
boating, canoeing, birdwatching, running, siteseeing/driving, photography etc
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
Aesthetic value
• Increased property prices
• Amenity and population stability
• Beautiful landscapes
3
2
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
Spiritual and religious value
• Spiritual fulfilment
• Religious uses (holy water, holy springs)
• Knowing that natural environment is still
there
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Inspiration of art, folklore, architecture, etc.
• Inspiration for folklore and art, including
books, movies, photography, fine art, music,
dance, fashion, and architecture
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
Social relations (e.g. fishing, grazing or • Focal point for community activities, both
cropping communities)
through formal (e.g. fishing, walking) and
informal (such as volunteer activities)
pursuits
2
2
2
1
1
2
1
2
1
Intellectual, scientific, knowledge, educational • Formal and informal study and education
(non MA)
• Research(general but also life protecting)
• Natural inspiration for technology
• Influence on knowledge systems
Supporting services
Soil formation
• Enough fertile and healthy soil
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Primary production
• Biomass
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
Nutrient cycling
• Cycling and transportation of key nutrients
(N, P, S and C) and other substances
essential for life which ensure fertility and
quality of soil, air and water etc to supply
other benefits
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Water recycling
• Flow of water through ecosystems in its
solid, liquid, or gaseous forms. Transfer of
water from soil to plants, plants to air, and air
to rain
3
2
3
3
3
3
0
3
0
through
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
• A certain level of biological diversity is
essential for maintaining all other functions
and services
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
Photosynthesis (production of atmospheric •
Generation
of
oxygen
oxygen)
photosynthetic processes
Provision of habitat
11
BENEFITS OF THE ECOSYSTEM APPROACH
The benefits of using the ecosystem approach for WFD implementation have been reviewed and are
further discussed. They have been grouped, in order to be more distinctly and fully presented.
Greater consideration of ecosystem functions which are critical to benefit delivery
As previously presented, traditional WFD analysis emphasizes structural components (and therefore
measures to improve structural components) overlooking functional components which are critical
to benefit delivery. WFD implementation experience to date has indicated that additional, functional
aspects of assessing the condition of water bodies need to be urgently considered. This particularly
relates to the need to consider flow and hydromorphologial alterations. These are closely associated
with ecosystem functions and to a lesser degree with structural indicators. It is noteworthy that in
Member States’ consultation processes, in preparation for the RBMPs, flow and morphological
alterations (e.g. changes caused by the creation of dams or hydropower production) were confirmed
as the most important pressures on rivers by the background information provided (Scheuer and
Rouillard, 2008). However, the identified Significant Water Management Issues (SWMI) did not
reflect this, focusing mostly, at an aggregated level, on pollution caused by households and
agriculture (ibid.), demonstrating that action is required to incorporate vital ecosystem function
aspects into the decision making process. This is one of the aspects in which the ecosystem approach
could be valuable. The consequences of not doing so could be not putting in place programmes of
measures that deliver functional improvements which consequently are the ones that deliver use
benefits.
More systematic and systemic thinking, and improved evidence collation
The ecosystem approach can enrich WFD implementation and can help regulators engage with the
public with a focus on meaningful outcomes. It can encourage more systematic thinking as it can
provide a consistent framework for identifying shared aims and evaluating alternative water
management scenarios and decision making, allowing for a broad consideration of the benefits,
costs and tradeoffs that occur in each case.
Systemic thinking involves looking at all the components of the system in question and their
interactions. The ecosystem approach provides a framework for establishing systemic
understanding, as it underlines the relationship between land and water (RELU, 2010), promotes the
need to view proposed actions to benefit the water environment in the wider environmental,
economic and social contexts, and encourages the creation of a stronger and more encompassing
knowledge base on the properties, functions (capacity and potential) and the delivery of services
with a spatially explicit outlook. It this sense, it also supports evidence collation which is an area
where improvement is currently required within WFD implementation.
Systemic thinking also relates to understanding the long term dynamics of a water body. This can
help inform management actions in terms of feasibility, expected outcomes, time and other
resource requirements, etc. A particularly controversial component of the WFD has been the
concept of reference conditions for assessing the status of water bodies. These refer to a state in
which there are ‘no, or only very minor, anthropogenic alterations’ to water bodies. Besides the
practical difficulty of defining such conditions, it has been suggested that this approach does not
take into consideration the fact that river basins fundamentally change over time due to a
combination of factors, such as natural succession, climate change, invasive species and landscape
changes (Baaner and Josefsson, 2011). A continually changing combination of factors shapes the
status of a water body. Natural endogenous changes occur, and the system naturally experiences a
long-term dynamic. It has been proposed that management should account for expected changes. In
long-term ecosystem management, there is a need to identify the trajectory or direction in which
12
ecosystems change, and to ensure that concepts such as path dependency and self-organisation are
properly accounted for. However, most of these changes are not of the same time frame as the 6
year cycle of river basin plans. An ecosystem services viewpoint can support understanding or
system dynamics and therefore support cost-effective decision making.
By encouraging a framework for systemic thinking, especially one that can make use of the many
available tools and techniques of ecosystem restoration, the ecosystem approach encourages the
consideration of a greater breadth of alternative courses of action for achieving desired
improvements of the water environment. The introduction of a novel action/approach or a
combination of approaches to be used brings innovation into the process. For example, in WFD
implementation, deadline extensions are granted on the basis of disproportionate costs, slow
natural recovery or technical unfeasibility. The latter was the case for the River Scheldt-Flanders in
Belgium. After running a water quality model for all water bodies with a catalogue of measures
proposed by authorities, it was concluded that good status was not technically possible (EEB, 2010).
One of the criticisms that this conclusion received was that it did not take into account natural
restoration measures such as wetland re-creation. Since such measures are used for ecosystem
restoration and are closely linked to the ecosystem approach, there could potentially be substantial
benefit from incorporating the ecosystem approach into WFD implementation. It needs to be noted,
however, that the delivery of ecosystem services may also require time as it is based on the recovery
of the related ecosystem functions. Overall, incorporating the ecosystem approach into WFD
implementation could encourage a full range of alternative options for achieving good status to be
considered, enabling the achievement of the WFD objectives and/or facilitating these by reducing
the cost of compliance and leading to innovation.
Shift in focus on legislative compliance towards one of delivering and better communicating wider
intent and aims of the WFD
There is current concern that meeting specific WFD legislative compliance requirements has become
the sole priority and that the broader aims and objectives of the WFD, such as the promotion of
sustainable water use, are now largely overlooked (Moss, 2008). Ecosystem services assessment can
help restore the shift in focus on legislative compliance towards one of broader benefit delivery by
emphasising that the overall desirable outcome is the improvement of environmental quality and
the resulting benefits for human communities, including economic viability and social welfare.
Moreover, the ecosystem approach can play a crucial role when communicating the benefits of
implementation and for deepening the appreciation of the significance of the WFD. It has the
potential to relate ecosystem health to societal benefits, helping to communicate the advantages of
achieving WFD aims and objectives and to secure support for environmental priorities.
By using the ecosystem approach for communication purposes, public engagement and participation
can be enhanced leading to an overall improvement of the decision making process at every stage.
Public participation can lead to a transparent planning process and comprehensive decision making.
The benefits are bidirectional. By demonstrating to the public the direct effects of successful
implementation on quality of life but also on the long term economic benefits of preserving and
restoring natural resources, the overall process is facilitated (e.g. more sustainable stakeholder
practices). Also, public engagement allows for the local public’s knowledge and experience to be
beneficially utilised, can reduce objections in the formal administrative procedure and allows people
to restore their own small catchments (water bodies) in terms of ecological function, making an
important contribution to meeting WFD targets. Importantly, public knowledge can pragmatically
determine where and what can be done to enable WFD implementation (Bley, 2007), and can help
identify and more fully consider the real environmental priorities of individuals and communities
(RELU, 2011).
13
The ecosystem approach can also help sustain restoration efforts and encourage further
developments. This particularly relates to the current ‘one out, all out’ element of the WFD, which
makes progress difficult to realise and may result in a relative discouragement of efforts. The
ecosystem approach can have a positive contribution in this area, as the improvements will be
captured as an advancement of ecosystem services that can be appreciated by the public and policy
makers. This will confirm that there is a movement in the right direction and will therefore support
additional activities towards compliance.
Improving the economic argument for measures
Framing desired WFD goals in terms of ecosystem service outcomes can optimise societal benefits
provided by ‘programmes of measures’ and avert unintended consequences, compared with
traditional, discipline-specific management approaches. It can also highlight potential contributions
from ecosystem-based technologies to achieving multiple benefits across ecosystem service
categories and allow for more beneficial outcomes (and fewer unforeseen costs) per unit of
investment (Everard, 2011), and through monetisation of such benefits it can improve the economic
argument for restoration actions. The benefits as determined through ecosystem services
assessment could be added to the cost benefit analysis for greater completeness of the process and
to provide better justification for implementation of environmental management options, as well as
a better understanding of regulatory impact. The marginal cost of improvements in the water
environment is another critical aspect of WFD implementation. Cost analysis can identify
characteristic points at which costs rise sharply and where problems for decisions are most likely to
arise, and hence where CBAs should focus on estimating the outcomes of options (Fisher, 2008). As
an example of marginal costs consideration, acknowledging that nutrient retention was critical for
meeting the aims and objectives of the WFD, Meyerhoff and Dehnhard (2004) calculated the
marginal costs of alternative options for the delivery of this vital function. Results suggested that
that the marginal cost of avoiding nitrogen loads by agricultural measures was significantly lower
than the marginal costs of wastewater treatment in sewage treatment plants (2.5 and 7.7 € / kg N
respectively). Overall, the ecosystem approach allows the identification of multiple benefits that
when considered in the cost benefit analysis, the identification of preferred, least cost management
solutions is facilitated. . Ecosystem assessments and valuations can help illustrate and communicate
the importance of environmental improvements. The Tamar 2000 SUPPORT (SUstainable Practices
Project On the River Tamar) Project is such an example. It represents a holistic, catchment-wide
approach to the restoration and rehabilitation of the River Tamar and its catchment. Changes in land
use, farm management, cropping patterns, fertiliser usage and combined drainage operations over
the last 30 years had resulted in widespread habitat destruction, degradation and pollution,
affecting the water resources and associated species diversity and density within the catchment (UK
CHM, n.d.). This programme, largely funded by the EU and conducted by the Westcountry Rivers
Trust, sought to address these problems and stabilise farm incomes by improving agricultural
practices and farm diversification in the predominantly rural River Tamar catchment (in
Southwestern England) (Everard, 2012). It did so by recommending farm interventions to protect or
enhance the river ecosystem, including some farm business diversification. The project was
implemented through a team of advisors trained in water resources and integrated land
management planning, who have visited over 300 individual farms within the catchment. For each
farm a management plan is produced, in which recommendations were made for implementing best
management practices associated with the land uses, and an appraisal of options to improve land
use, reduce costs, improve returns and meet specific conservation needs (UK CHM, n.d.). With a
strong focus on economic benefits of environmental interventions (Horsey, 2006), it was estimated
that the project delivered gross annual ecosystem services (for services that could be valued) with a
value of £3,875,306 (Everard, 2010) and a cumulative benefit-to-cost ratio of 109 : 1 (Everard, 2012).
14
The value of Ecosystem Service assessments within water quality improvement processes has also
been demonstrated in a recent study that investigated the role of ecosystem services in Chesapeake
Bay (United States) Restoration Strategies. The area faced high pollutant loads. Under the United
States’ Clean Water Act, a main mechanism for addressing these problems is the establishment of
total maximum daily loads (TMDL). The study developed a framework that incorporated ecosystem
services for evaluating TMDL reduction measures and TMDL-related tradeoffs (cost, ease of
monitoring). The aim was to identify what mix of pollution control projects provided the least costly
way to achieve water quality goals and to assess how the inclusion of ecosystem services affects the
desired mix of projects. Gray and green infrastructure was considered in the process and the costs
and ecosystem benefits of alternative mixes of the two were assessed. Among other things, findings
suggested that the inclusion of monetized ecosystem services in the optimization analysis shifted the
solution towards the inclusion of more nonpoint source pollution controls such as natural vegetation
and agricultural land, and that green infrastructure, although more costly, contributed substantial
offsetting ecosystem service values to the cost of achieving the TMDL targets. On the contrary, gray
infrastructure contributed ecosystem service disbenefits (US EPA, 2012). The ecosystem approach
and ecosystem service assessments are in line with the growing recognition that soft engineering
solutions and the preservation or acquisition of open space are more effective choice than investing
in sophisticated treatment.
The spatial mapping of ecosystem services as a novel visualisation approach and its use in decision
making
Another important aspect of the ecosystem approach for WFD implementation is the introduction of
novel visualisation approaches such as the spatial mapping of ecosystem services. Mapping
ecosystem services is strongly linked with the above mentioned benefits of the ecosystem approach
e.g. it allows the identification of multiple benefits across a catchment (for example) in a spatially
explicit manner, can illustrate the results of an ecosystem assessment (monetisation), builds upon
and synthesizes information on ecosystem properties such as land cover types, ecosystem functions
and services, aids understanding and demonstration of the impacts of alternative management
scenarios and resulting ecosystem service tradeoffs, and can serve as a very useful communication
and stakeholder engagement tool. All in all, mapping of ecosystem services can maximise the
potential of previously mentioned benefits of the ecosystem approach, help identify data
requirements and can bring together the available information in a meaningful way. While research
on ecosystem service mapping is ongoing and faces challenges associated with the extent and
quality of data collection, interesting studies have been conducted at various spatial scales and
adopting different methodologies.
First of all, ecosystem service mapping necessitates an understanding of ecosystem structure,
functions and services and their interconnections, as this information is needed to develop maps. It
also directly considers human interaction with ecosystems. An interesting mapping study, that was
based on the ‘cascade approach’, i.e. from structure, to function and to services, was conducted by
Schulp et al. (2012) for Eastern Europe. The authors mapped a diverse set of ecosystem services and
functions. Mapped ecosystem services included provisioning, regulating and cultural services. The
study mapped, quantified and simulated Ecosystem Service Functions and Ecosystem Services. A
cascade approach was adopted where ecosystem properties such as land cover, relief, topography
(coasts and rivers), temperature and soil characteristics, determine ecological functions i.e. the
capacity of providing ESS and ESS involve the extent of the human use of ecosystems. The estimation
of ESSs from ESFs was accomplished through the inclusion of human drivers such as population
density, Gross Domestic Product, land use and roads. The distinction between mapping ESFs and
ESSs was also made in a recent pan-European mapping study. This assessment included mapping of
15
provisioning services, regulating services, habitat services (benefits obtained from an ecosystem’s
control of natural processes) and cultural services across EU27. A total of 13 ecosystem services
were mapped and both the stocks and flows of these services were considered, with the former
expressing the capacity of an ecosystem to deliver benefits and flows as the actual services that
people derive from ecosystems. The authors established a methodology for ecosystem service
mapping, mapped the provision of ecosystem services at the EU scale, assessed synergies and tradeoffs of ecosystem services at the EU scale and estimated the contribution of European ecosystems to
the provision of ecosystem services. The authors stressed the need for using the developed maps in
scenario development. Scenarios could involve land use, biodiversity or human inputs against a set
of baseline maps in order to detect areas where ecosystem services increase or decrease (Maes et
al., 2011).
Mapping of ecosystem services can also be used in developing Payments for ecosystem services
(PES) (Westcountry Rivers Trust, n.d.). There is also a range of other opportunities that arise for
decision making through the combined use of geospatial information and economic valuation for
ecosystem services, as well as scenario development. Troy and Wilson (2006) demonstrated this
potential by developing a decision framework for estimating ecosystem service values and mapping
these results for three case studies (Massachusetts, Maury Island, Washington, and three counties in
California) using spatially explicit value transfer. The methodology included developing a land cover
typology, a literature search and analysis in order to assign estimates of ecosystem service value
coefficients for each land cover type and for each case study, mapping the spatial distribution of
each cover type using GIS, and mapping economic values on a tributary basin or property parcel
basis. Freshwater related land cover types included freshwater wetlands, freshwater streams, and
open fresh water. These delivered services such as aesthetics and amenity, disturbance prevention,
waste assimilation, recreation, habitat refugium and water regulation and supply. Moreover,
changes in ecosystem service value flows were evaluated for Maury Island under two development
scenarios. The mapping of results illustrated the % decrease in ecosystem service value flows per
land parcel, through a colour scheme. Despite acknowledged challenges and limitations associated
with the work conducted, e.g. that each application is subject to variability because of
information/data constraints and differences between site characteristics, spatial and temporal scale
and management objectives, the need for contextual similarity when using value transfer and the
fact that ESV should only lend itself as one type of evidence among many that need to be considered
in decision making , the potential contribution of this methodology was shown as promising and that
it can become increasingly so with improved data availability and accuracy.
DISCUSSION
The implementation of the WFD has been, and still is, a major challenge. Almost all EU Member
States have spent considerable time and resources to develop tools, gain the required data and
prepare river basin management plans. In this context, both the EU and its Member States have
funded a large number of research projects, particularly in the areas of ecological assessment and
catchment modelling (Hering et al., 2010). During the last decade, a diversity of indicators, target
values and reference setting approaches have been developed for evaluating ecological status for
surface water bodies (Van Hoey et al., 2010), and these are still the focus of much continuing
discussion. From a scientific perspective, the implementation of the WFD is amongst other things
greatly increasing knowledge on the ecology of European surface waters, particularly in regions
which have rarely been investigated: approximately 3200 papers have resulted from research
projects associated with the implementation of the WFD (query ‘Water Framework Directive’ in
SCOPUS on 17/07/2012). Many methods to sample and investigate aquatic ecosystems have been
developed and large amounts of data are being generated. Challenging aspects of the
16
implementation include the quantification of complex and dynamic biological communities into
concise classification systems, the establishment of ecological reference conditions and the
determination of the uncertainty in the resulting classification (Hering et al., 2010). The experience
from the implementation of the WFD in the UK thus far is further presented.
The original intention of the WFD was essentially to protect and enhance the water environment for
the benefit of society, although the term ‘ecosystem services’ was not used in the Directive. In order
for the WFD to achieve its high level goals it first required its member states to develop new,
common metrics to assess the current and future desired state of the environment (i.e. new water
classification systems) including the development of new ways of assessing biotic health as a
measure of environmental quality (expected to be a much more holistic measure of the health of the
water environment). Therefore, the ecosystem approach and the wfd are similar in intent and in fact
may not be so different in outcome if the economic assessments that are integral to WFD
implementation take into account multiple benefits arising from WFD measures. Furthermore the
classification systems developed for the WFD were designed with societal benefits in mind
(ecosystem services), and the main reason they may produce different levels of protection
compared to a more modern ecosystem approach is likely to be because WFD uses metrics that are
proxies of a desired environmental state which is turn is a proxy to societal benefits such as clean
and available water.
Along the way, the UK WFD implementation programmes became rather dominated by the daunting
technical and organisational challenges of developing, applying and then assessing compliance with
these new environmental standards. At the same time, policy leaders and planners to some extent
ceased to regard the WFD as an opportunity to embrace a more holistic and more social way to
manage the environment, but instead started to regard it as an exercise in compliance, in part driven
by the EC’s stance on compliance. This resulted in the first round of RBM being characterised by a
technocratic, reductionist and centralised approach that lost something of the spirit and wider intent
of The Directive. One of the casualties has been a failure to communicate WFD objectives in
language that is meaningful to most stakeholders or perhaps more accurately failing to translate
WFD outcomes into meaningful social or economic outcomes (ecosystem services). However, there
has recently been widespread recognition of the above and there is a move in England & Wales, to
move towards a more holistic systems approach that is fully cognisant of the concept of ecosystem
services/multiple benefits and sees the opportunity to express the WFD’s objectives and outcomes
in the language of ecosystem services/societal benefits. This should allow us to better communicate
the benefits of the WFD in more meaningful ways, and more readily accommodate synergies with
complementary programmes e.g. some flood risk management activities, as well as opening up the
planning process to wider stakeholder involvement (e.g. the Catchment based approach).
Moreover, by offering the opportunity to apply systems thinking, an ecosystem approach to the
implementation of the WFD may lead to different observations and decisions, offering the potential
to maximise value across all ecosystem services. It allows for a wider consideration of possible
management actions, the creation of a more systematic framework for decision making, and,
through the inclusion and monetisation of a broader range of benefits can improve the economic
argument in support of measures. Importantly, with traditional WFD implementation focusing on
structural ecosystem components, the ecosystem approach can allow a greater consideration of
functional components that are fundamental for benefit delivery, thus supporting the
appropriateness of proposed measures.
Communication is of key importance for reaping the benefits of using the ecosystem approach, and
finding the means by which it can be best accomplished is critical to success. By adopting some of
the language of ESS and its systems approach we can reinvigorate our approach to river basin and
catchment management. This can help us regain some of the spirit of the directive by assisting with
17
communications, engagement and the development of less reductionist approaches that allows us
to think more clearly about multiple benefits and more integrated planning.
Figure 4 presents in a basic representation of the complementary relationship between the WFD and
ecosystem services. It illustrates the importance of considering functional components to deliver
real societal benefits that are within the intent of both the ecosystem approach and the WFD.
Figure 4 Combining the WFD and Ecosystem approach
Successful application of an ecosystem approach to the implementation of the WFD across Member
States would require the integration of regulatory and technical information and extensive
collaboration among countries, between agencies, and across disciplines. It will also require
extensive efforts to adapt current systems of environmental assessment and management to the
basin and ecosystem level, across media and habitats, and to consider a much broader set of
impacts on ecosystem status than is currently addressed in most assessments. This will require the
understanding, integration, and communication of economic, ecological, hydrological, and other
processes across many spatial and temporal scales, further highlighting the importance of the
communication process. This has been targeted in the Evidence for Significant Water Management
Issues.
Further research needs to be conducted to provide concrete practical evidence of how the
ecosystem approach can be best harmonised within WFD implementation in order to help deliver its
aims and objectives. This involves verifying and/or quantifying the strength of links between WFD
objectives and the ecosystem services, and selecting and testing the suitability of functional
indicators to act as a complement to the structural indicators already used in the WFD framework.
Improved data collection will also be crucial for making best use of the ecosystem approach for WFD
implementation. This could include the collection of data on ecosystem functions in order to better
assess the health of ecosystems, improving the accuracy, appropriateness and quality of data to
support sophisticated applications such as ecosystem service mapping, etc. Moreover, the suitability
of the language used is crucial for engagement with a wide range of stakeholders. The complexity,
accessibility and effectiveness of communication are aspects that need consideration when using
terms such as ‘ecosystem services’. The use and explanation of terms is central to effective
communication. In the meantime the ESS approach should help to improve the quality of WFD cost
benefit and disproportionate cost assessments by helping to identify additional and often multiple
benefits that come to light when the ecosystem approach is properly applied. And while great
efforts are therefore still required, emerging applications such as the spatial mapping of ecosystem
18
services suggest a realm of possibilities for collecting, synthesizing, using and illustrating information
towards holistic water management and perhaps bringing us closer to the intended spirit of the
WFD.
REFERENCES
Bley, J. (2007) Involving the public in WFD – Implementation –Practical Experiences from Baden
Württemberg.
Brussels.
[Online]
Available
at:
http://ecologicevents.eu/wfd2007/en/documents/bley.pdf [Accessed 16 August 2012].
Baaner, L. and Josefsson, H. (2011) The Water Framework Directive – A Directive for the Twenty-first
Century? Institute of food and resource economics, Denmark.
De Groot, R.S., Wilson, M.A. and Boumans, R., M., J. (2002): A typology for the classification,
description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services. Ecological Economics 41: 393–
408.
Defra (2010) Delivering a healthy natural environment - An update to “Securing a healthy natural
environment: An action plan for embedding an ecosystems approach” [Online] Available at:
http://archive.defra.gov.uk/environment/policy/natural-environ/documents/healthy-natenviron.PDF [Accessed 15 February 2013]
Defra (2013) Using an ecosystems approach [Online] Available at:
http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/natural/ecosystems-services/ecosystems-approach/
[Accessed 15 February 2013]
EEB (2010) 10 years of the Water Framework Directive: A Toothless Tiger? A snapshot analysis of EU
environmental ambitions. European Environment Bureau, Brussels. [Online] Available at:
http://www.eeb.org/?LinkServID=B1E256EB-DBC1-AA1C-DBA46F91C9118E7D&showMeta=0
[Accessed 16 May 2012]
EEB & WWF (2008) Europe’s water at the crossroads. European Environment Bureau. [Online]
Available at:
http://www.eeb.org/publication/2008/EuropeWaterCrossroads_EEBWWFbrochure_final.pdf
[Accessed 10 July 2012]
Environment Agency (2009) Water for Life and Livelihoods: River Basin Management Plan Severn
River
Basin
District.
[Online]
Available
at:
http://publications.environmentagency.gov.uk/PDF/GEMI0910BSSK-E-E.pdf [Accessed 26 July 2012]
ESAWADI (2011) Framework of Analysis - Work Package 1: Inception and work on Common
understanding and methodology. [Online] Available at: http://www.esawadi.eu/IMG/pdf/ESAWADIFramework_of_Analysis-vf.pdf [Accessed 15 December 2012]
European Commission (2008a) Water Note 2 Cleaning up Europe's Waters: Identifying and assessing
surface water bodies at risk. [Online] Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/waterframework/pdf/water_note2_cleaning_up.pdf [Accessed 1 February 2013].
European Commission (2008b) The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: An Interim Report.
[Online] Available at:
19
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/biodiversity/economics/pdf/teeb_report.pdf [Accessed 20
December 2012]
European Parliament and Council (2000) Directive 2000/60/EC establishing a framework for
Community action in the field of water policy. Official Journal of the European Union, L327, pp1-72.
Everard, M. (2010) Lessons learned from ecosystem services case studies. Presentation at the
‘Missing markets’ workshop, Bangor, 27-29th April 2010. [Online] Available at:
www.werh.org/MeverardCasestudylessons [Accessed 15 August 2012]
Everard, M. (2011) An ecosystem approach to implementation of the Water Framework Directive.
[Online] Available at: http://www.hydrology.org.uk/Meetings/EVERARD%20%20Ecosystem%20services%20(2011-09-20).pdf [Accessed 15 August 2012]
Everard, M. (2012) Why does ‘good ecological status’ matter? Water and Environment Journal, 26
(2), 165-174. [Online] Available at: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.17476593.2011.00273.x/abstract [Accessed 15 May 2012]
Fisher, J. (2008) Challenges for applying Cost-Benefit Analysis and valuation of environmental
benefits to aid environmental decision-making in practice. Environment Agency. Presentation at the
European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists 16th Annual Conference,
Gothenburg 25-28 June 2008.
[Online] Available at: www.environment-agency.gov.uk/static/.../cba_2099268.doc [Accessed 16
August 2012]
Foundation for Water Research (2010) What is the WFD? [Online]
http://www.euwfd.com/html/what_is_the_wfd-.html [Accessed 25 January 2012]
Available
at:
Haines-Young, R. and Potschin, M. (2009) Methodologies for Methodologies for defining and
assessing ecosystem services. Nottingham University, Nottingham. [Online] Available at:
http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/cem/pdf/JNCC_Review_Final_051109.pdf [Accessed 16 August 2012]
Hering, D., Borja, A., Carstensen, J., Carvalho, L.,Elliott, M., Feld, C. K, Heiskanen, A-S, Johnson, R. K.,
Moe, J., Pont, D., Solheim, A. L., Van de Bund, W. (2010) The European Water Framework Directive
at the age of 10: A critical review of the achievements with recommendations for the future. Science
of the total environment, 408 (19), 4007-4019.
Horsey, S. (2006) Case Studies Aimed At Reducing Diffuse Water Pollution From Agriculture In
England. Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs. [Online] Available at:
http://archive.defra.gov.uk/foodfarm/landmanage/water/csf/documents/dwpa-report.pdf
[Accessed 1 August 2012]
Maes, J., Paracchini, M., L., Zulian, G. (2011) A European assessment of the provision of ecosystem
services - Towards an atlas of ecosystem services. European Commission, Joint Research Centre,
Institute for Environment and Sustainability. Publication office of the European Union, Luxembourg.
Matthews, R. A., Buikema, A. L., Cairns, J., Rodgers, J. H. (1982) Biological monitoring Part iia-Receiving System Functional Methods, Relationships and Indices. Water Resources 16, 129-139.
Meyerhoff, J. and Dehnhardt, A. (2004) The European Water Framework Directive and Economic
Valuation of Wetlands. Working paper on management in environmental planning. Technical
20
University of Berlin, Berlin. [Online] Available at: http://www.landschaftsoekonomie.tuberlin.de/fileadmin/a0731/uploads/publikationen/workingpapers/wp01104.pdf [Accessed 16
August 2012].
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis.
Island Press, Washington, DC. [Online] Available at
http://www.maweb.org/documents/document.356.aspx.pdf [Accessed 23 August 2012].
Moss, B. (2008) The Water Framework Directive: Total environment or political compromise?.
Science of the Total Environment 400: 32-41
Nelson, S. M. (2000) Leaf pack breakdown and macroinvertebrate colonization: bioassessment tools
for a high-altitude regulated system? Environmental Pollution 110, 321-329.
RELU (2010) Water Framework: Implementing the Water Framework Directive. RELU, Newcastle.
RELU (2011) Modelling the impacts of the European Water Framework Directive: implementing the
ecosystem services approach. RELU, Newcastle.
Scheuer, S. and Rouillard, J. (2008) Letting the public have their say on water management. A
snapshot analysis of Member States’ consultations.
Schulp, C., J., E., Alkemade, R., Goldewijk, K., K., Petz, K. (2012) Mapping Ecosystem functions and
services in Eastern Europe using global-scale data sets. International Journal of Biodiversity Science,
Ecosystem Services and Management, 8 (1-2) 156-168.
Schmedtje, U (2011) WFD Implementation in the Danube River Basin. European Water Association.
7th Brussels Conference Proceedings. [Online] Available at:
http://www.ewaonline.de/downloads/Brussels_Conference_pres_7.pdf [Accessed 26 July 2012]
Schulp, C. J.E., Alkemade, R., Goldewijk, K. K., Petz, K. (2012) Mapping ecosystem functions and
services in Eastern Europe using global-scale data sets. International Journal of Biodiversity Science,
Ecosystem Services & Management, 8 (1-2), 156-168
Task Force for the Environmental Programme for the Danube River Basin (1994) Strategic Action
Plan for the Danube River Basin 1995-2005. [Online] Available at:
http://www.ceit.sk/wwwisis/sap1.htm [Accessed 02 June 2012]
Troy, A. and Wilson, M., A. (2006) Mapping ecosystem services: Practical challenges and
opportunities in linking GIS and value transfer. Ecological Economics 60, 435 – 449.
UK CHM (n.d.) TAMAR 2000 Support Project. UK Clearing House Mechanism for Biodiversity. [Online]
Available at: http://uk.chm-cbd.net/Default.aspx?page=7120&doc_id=11964 [Accessed 16 August
2012]
U.S. EPA (2012) An optimization approach to evaluate the role of ecosystem services in Chesapeake
Bay Restoration Strategies. U.S. EPA/600/R-11/001.
Van Hoey, G., Borja A., Birchenough, S., Buhl-Mortensen, L, Degraer, S., Fleischer D., Kerckhof, F.,
Magni, P., Muxika, I., Reiss, H., Schröder, A., Zettler, M. L. (2010) The use of benthic indicators in
21
Europe: From the Water Framework Directive to the Marine Strategy Framework Directive. Marine
Pollution Bulletin 60, 2187–2196
Weller, P (2009) River restoration and the role of the EU Water Framework Directive in the Danube
River Basin. Presentation at the ECRR Seminar, Lellystadt. [Online] Available at:
http://www.ecrr.org/pdf/lelystad/ppt07.pdf [Accessed 9 July 2012]
Westcountry Rivers Trust (n.d.) WATER - Restoring river catchment function using payments for
ecosystem services. Westcountry Rivers Trust, Cornwall.
World Resources Institute (WRI) (2009) Foundations of the Ecosystem Service Indicators Framework
[Online]
Available
at:
http://www.esindicators.org/files/esid/Framework%20discussion%20for%20download.pdf [Accessed 13
August 2012]
Young, R., Townsend, C., Matthaei, C. (2004) Functional indicators of river ecosystem health – an
interim guide for use in New Zealand. A report prepared for the Ministry of the Environment New
Zealand. CAWTHRON. [Online] Available at: http://www.cawthron.org.nz/coastal-freshwaterresources/downloads/functional-indicators-guide-final.pdf [Accessed 15 June 2012]
22