比较法视野下的水法立法目的——我国水法与欧盟《水框架指令》及德国《水平衡管理法》

我国水法之间没有形成统一的水治理理念,仍强调以水开发利用为重点。相比,欧盟《水框架指令》从零碎的多个水指令已发展到以水体保护为直接立法目的、以环境保护为统一理念的综合性指令,而德国《水平衡管理法》明确保护作为生态平衡中的组成部分、作为人类的生活基础、作为动植物的生活空间以及作为可利用物之水体。因此,环境保护是欧盟和德国水法的直接立法目的,是可持续水治理的最终目的,与社会与经济的可持续发展置于同等地位。提出我国应尽快在环境保护的统一理念下实现水体的综合保护。     

《欧盟水框架指令》与水资源一体化管理

旨在分析《欧盟水框架指令》如何与几次大型国际会议上制定的有关水资源一体化管理(IWRM)的国际原则相符的情况。将国际水与环境会议、第2届世界水论坛、国际淡水会议以及世界可持续发展峰会的成果与《欧盟水框架指令》进行了比较。即使几个欧盟国家在这几次会议上起到了主导作用,仍发现几种明显不符的情况。     

欧盟水框架指令下斯洛文尼亚水资源管理的创新

介绍了斯洛文尼亚目前的水资源管理组织结构,该国环境机构及其与邻国组建的各种水资源管理委员会的作用,以及欧盟水框架指令在其中的演变发展情况.     

英国水资源综合管理的战略途径

概述了政策执行中的两种途径,即自上而下途径与自下而上途径。重点介绍了英国与水资源综合管理(IWRM)有关的重要进展、模式和认识,阐述了两个重大计划,即《欧盟水框架指令(WFD)》和基于流域的途径(Ca BA)在执行过程中存在的关联性。这两个计划包括与IWRM相联系的多种原则和多个目标,推动了土地和水资源的协调管理,保护了生态系统健康,实现了经济、社会和环境协调发展。     

实施流域水功能区限制纳污制度基本框架

文章在深入解读中央一号文件中水资源保护任务要求及相关分析的基础上,结合流域保护工作实际,提出了建立和实施流域水功能区限制纳污制度的基本框架.其框架的结构要素、功能作用及管理预期的考虑,给出了执行层面对制度建立和实施的整体构划和系统脉络.     

欧盟水框架指令下英格兰和威尔士水资源管理的创新

英格兰和威尔士环境署负责英格兰和威尔士水环境的治理,包括水质、水资源和洪水风险管理等方面.政府已指定该署为执行欧盟水框架指令(WFD)的主管机构.虽然这是该署现行管理职责的合理延伸,但并不意味着该署只负责执行WFD.最富挑战性的工作之一是确定共同执行WFD的合作伙伴,以创新的工作方式实现WFD所要求的环境目标.环境署在执行WFD时提出了一种情景(scenario-based)方法,即对3个提高目标和增加成本的情景进行分析.详细地分析了每一可能行动的成本和效益.     

英格兰和威尔士水资源管理的现行法律法规框架

作为欧盟成员,英国的国家立法中必须包括欧洲的水法律。这些法律以指令的形式集中在城市废水处理、危险物质、地下水保护等方面。在过去10a左右的时间里,个别指令已被合并为欧盟水框架指令,提供统一的水资源管理方法。近来颁布的文件明确了各成员国在水资源综合管理中的职责,实际上是采用了英格兰和威尔士已实行近40a的许多准则。概述了欧盟立法框架并总结了英格兰和威尔士与水资源管理相关的国家立法,简述了目前水资源管理的结构和责任。     

欧洲水资源保护蓝图

欧盟自2000年颁布实施以流域管理为核心的《欧盟水框架指令》以来,水资源保护取得了显著成效,在国际上也享有盛誉。但近期评估显示,由于一些挑战性因素的存在,《欧盟水框架指令》中水政策目标的实现出现了一定的不确定性。为有效应对挑战与问题,2012年11月26—27日欧盟委员会在塞浦路斯首都尼科西亚召开了欧盟水蓝图会议,发布了《欧洲水资源保护蓝图》报告。报告介绍了出台背景,分别就土地利用与生态、化学状态与污染、用水效率、水体脆弱性等方面存在的问题提出了解决方案,并在归纳分析欧盟水政策的基础上,对未来前景进行了展望。     

解析欧盟国家的用水模式

正《欧盟水框架指令》(WFD)明确了欧盟国家水资源的共同目标。鉴于其对水资源保护和水政策基本方法的考虑,研究旨在分析欧洲是否存在通用的用水模式。以2005~2007年欧盟国家生产系统的用水数据为准,采用两种方法来揭示各国行业用水产生的原因,并探讨用水模式随时间变化的情况:第     

欧盟水框架指令初议

欧盟水框架指令（WFD）是近几十年来欧盟在水资源领域颁布的最重要指令。简要分析了欧盟水框架指令产生的背景及过程,概述了指令主要内容及法律效力,分析了其在流域管理、规划、价格激励、信息咨询等方面的主要特点,并结合现代水资源管理的特点,提出几点建议。     

欧盟流域管理规划试点项目

丹麦的欧登塞河流域是欧洲14个流域之一,也是实施欧盟《水框架指令》流域管理规划的试点。作为共同实施战略的一部分,通过测试一系列技术指导文件,以确保形成统一的流域管理规划模式。项目成果包括3个部分,即流域特性报告、典型河流流域管理计划和用于公众咨询的简易报告。通过欧登塞河流域试点项目的实施,欧盟各成员国的水管理机构及欧盟委员会获得了流域管理的知识和经验,同时可为中国未来的流域管理规划提供有益的借鉴。     

欧盟小型水体生态修复技术在生态清洁小流域建设中的应用

总结了采用欧盟水框架指南标准,在北京山区生态清洁小流域建设中开展小型水体(小型河(沟)道)生态修复的做法及经验。从防洪、水质、生态和休闲娱乐等四个方面探讨了小型水体生态修复的目标、技术及做法,介绍了项目6个示范区河(沟)道生态修复措施的配置及其产生的生态效益,为全市开展生态清洁小流域建设提供了重要支撑。     

Workshop 5 (synthesis): water pollution abatement as related to ecosystem protection.

Water pollution exerts major stress on water systems and the challenge is to ensure security in river basins for both water-dependent activities and for the aquatic ecosystems. The workshop focused on protection of good ecological status, quality criteria, priorities for action, and on achievement of sustainable improvements. The three keynote speakers presented the concept applied in the EU Water Framework Directive, the need for a multi-stakeholder collaboration in order to reach a good ecological status of waters and a concrete example of interactive planning of water protection measures in a transboundary lake. The additional paper presentations addressed specific pollution problems in catchments, the effect of environmental user fees and ecosystem indicators.     

Groundwater use in Spain: an overview in light of the EU Water Framework Directive

In semi-arid regions, aquifers provide a series of practical advantages that make them preferential sources of water supply. In Spain, groundwater meets about one-fifth of the total water demand and is used to irrigate over one-third of the total irrigated land. This article examines groundwater use in Spain from the perspective of the EU Water Framework Directive. Analysis of different sector uses suggests that core problems (and solutions) related to groundwater lie in agricultural uses and that the Directive's environmental requirements remain distant from reality on the ground, where economic, political and social reasons prevail on legal obligations set by national and supranational authorities.     

Anwendung der Habitatmodellierung zur integrativen Bewertung von Schwall und Restwasser im Bereich der Wasserkraftnutzung

The current and future use of water power as a cost-effective and renewable energy source are increasingly leading to conflicts of interest between the declared environmental protection goals of the EU Water Framework Directive and the water energy sector. As such, it has become necessary to objectively assess and quantify the potential impacts of using water power on those biological quality criteria that are relevant for the Water Framework Directive, and to do so on a case-by-case basis. With the help of selected case studies, this paper offers insights into the applicability of habitat modeling as an integrative planning and assessment tool with regard to addressing peak and residual flow problems. The results of habitat modeling-based peak flow assessment conducted on the Alpenrhein and on the Enns indicate that the potential negative consequences for aquatic fauna cannot accurately be predicted without taking into account the river-type-dependent and river-reach-dependent morphological differences. They also clearly show the importance of season-based assessments of the peak flow problems, as, given the seasonal differences in discharge and water levels, basing an assessment on only one season would not be representative. Further, a study conducted on the Ybbs demonstrates how habitat modeling can be used to determine an ecologically sound residual flow level for typical local fish fauna.     

Morphodynamische Aspekte der Ökohydraulik und Habitatmodellierung im Kontext der rechtlichen Rahmenbedingungen

Hydromorphological status and risk assessments are crucial with regard to the planning of measures in keeping the aims of the EU’s Water Framework Directive. However, both status assessments and integrative habitat models are often based on one-time terrain measurements and therefore offer only limited potential for assessing dynamic potential. The aim of the paper is to address the importance of dynamic processes in rivers and to emphasize their importance for water management practice. In the context of an integrative habitat assessment, three different forms of dynamic processes need to be taken into account: (1) flow dynamics, (2) morphodynamics and (3) longer-term changes, e.g. those caused by global warming. However, given the various types of use, these dynamic processes are often affected by anthropogenic pressures. This paper describes to what extent and in which form these dynamic processes are/can be decisive for the quality and quantity of aquatic habitats. Here, the river-type-specific differences with regard to habitat assessment are also discussed. Case studies from rivers in southern Styria and Carinthia underline the significance of morphodynamics, both for the goals of the Water Framework Directive and with regard to the implementation of the Floods Directive, as self-forming processes may be as well important for flood protection issues     

EU Water Framework Directive vs. Integrated Water Resources Management: The Seven Mismatches

The aim of this paper is to analyze how the EU Water Framework Directive complies with the international principles concerning Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) agreed in major conferences. The outcomes of the International Conference on Water and Environment (Dublin, 1992), the Second World Water Forum (The Hague, 2000), the International Conference on Freshwater (Bonn, 2001), and the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) (Johannesburg, 2002) were compared with the EU Water Framework Directive. Seven notable mismatches were found, even though several EU countries have played a leading role in those conferences. The question arises whether the outcome of these conferences is not efficient enough to influence EU policies—do the conferences just produce collections of idealistic buzzwords or is there a requirement for different principles regarding IWRM for developing countries and developed countries?     

Defining urban diffuse pollution loadings and receiving water hazard.

The use of unit area loading approaches to address the requirements of the US Clean Water Act (CWA) and the EU Water Framework Directive (WFD) to identify and manage diffuse urban pollution sources is outlined. Issues relating to traditional volume-concentration probabilistic modelling are highlighted and the robustness of total maximum daily load (TMDL) approaches is discussed. A hazard assessment methodology for catchment scale identification of source area pollutant loadings and receiving water ecological impacts is developed based on urban land use activities.