Guidance for sediment and biota monitoring under the Common Implementation Strategy for the Water Framework Directive

2012 ◽  
Vol 36 ◽  
pp. 15-24 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mario Carere ◽  
Valeria Dulio ◽  
Georg Hanke ◽  
Stefano Polesello
Keyword(s):  
Water Framework Directive ◽  
Implementation Strategy ◽  
Biota Monitoring ◽  
The Common

scholarly journals Biota monitoring under the Water Framework Directive: On tissue choice and fish species selection

2018 ◽  
Vol 235 ◽  
pp. 129-140 ◽  
Author(s):  
Annette Fliedner ◽  
Heinz Rüdel ◽  
Nina Lohmann ◽  
Georgia Buchmeier ◽  
Jan Koschorreck
Keyword(s):  
Water Framework Directive ◽  
Fish Species ◽  
Species Selection ◽  
Biota Monitoring

scholarly journals How to optimise public health interventions: a scoping review of guidance from optimisation process frameworks

2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Sam McCrabb ◽  
Kaitlin Mooney ◽  
Benjamin Elton ◽  
Alice Grady ◽  
Sze Lin Yoong ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Scoping Review ◽  
Implementation Strategy ◽  
Public Health Intervention ◽  
Health Intervention ◽  
Health Interventions ◽  
Problem Identification ◽  
Key Concepts ◽  
The Common ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Background Optimisation processes have the potential to rapidly improve the impact of health interventions. Optimisation can be defined as a deliberate, iterative and data-driven process to improve a health intervention and/or its implementation to meet stakeholder-defined public health impacts within resource constraints. This study aimed to identify frameworks used to optimise the impact of health interventions and/or their implementation, and characterise the key concepts, steps or processes of identified frameworks. Methods A scoping review of MEDLINE, CINAL, PsycINFO, and ProQuest Nursing & Allied Health Source databases was undertaken. Two reviewers independently coded the key concepts, steps or processes involved in each frameworks, and identified if it was a framework aimed to optimise interventions or their implementation. Two review authors then identified the common steps across included frameworks. Results Twenty optimisation frameworks were identified. Eight frameworks were for optimising interventions, 11 for optimising implementation and one covered both intervention and implementation optimisation. The mean number of steps within the frameworks was six (range 3–9). Almost half (n = 8) could be classified as both linear and cyclic frameworks, indicating that some steps may occur multiple times in a single framework. Two meta-frameworks are proposed, one for intervention optimisation and one for implementation strategy optimisation. Steps for intervention optimisation are: Problem identification; Preparation; Theoretical/Literature base; Pilot/Feasibility testing; Optimisation; Evaluation; and Long-term implementation. Steps for implementation strategy optimisation are: Problem identification; Collaborate; Plan/design; Pilot; Do/change; Study/evaluate/check; Act; Sustain/endure; and Disseminate/extend. Conclusions This review provides a useful summary of the common steps followed to optimise a public health intervention or its implementation according to established frameworks. Further opportunities to study and/or validate such frameworks and their impact on improving outcomes exist.

scholarly journals Biota monitoring and the Water Framework Directive—can normalization overcome shortcomings in sampling strategies?

2016 ◽  
Vol 23 (21) ◽  
pp. 21927-21939 ◽  
Author(s):  
Annette Fliedner ◽  
Heinz Rüdel ◽  
Diana Teubner ◽  
Georgia Buchmeier ◽  
Jaqueline Lowis ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Water Framework Directive ◽  
Sampling Strategies ◽  
Biota Monitoring

A practical example of the challenges of biota monitoring under the Water Framework Directive

2014 ◽  
Vol 59 ◽  
pp. 103-111 ◽  
Author(s):  
Roberto Lava ◽  
Laszlo I. Majoros ◽  
Ioannis Dosis ◽  
Marina Ricci
Keyword(s):  
Water Framework Directive ◽  
Biota Monitoring

scholarly journals Co-operative agreements and the EU Water Framework Directive in conjunction with the Common Agricultural Policy

2008 ◽  
Vol 12 (3) ◽  
pp. 715-726 ◽  
Author(s):  
I. Heinz
Keyword(s):  
Water Framework Directive ◽  
Agricultural Policy ◽  
Common Agricultural Policy ◽  
Farming Practices ◽  
Agricultural Policies ◽  
Environmental Pressures ◽  
Research Activities ◽  
Catchment Areas ◽  
The Common ◽  
Water Companies

Abstract. This paper discusses the significance of voluntary arrangements for the water and agricultural policies in the European Union. The current implementation of the European Water Framework Directive (WFD) and the reform of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) require new approaches in water management. As many case studies have shown, co-operative agreements (CAs) between water companies, farmers and authorities can help to reduce environmental pressures on water bodies. The main reasons for that are: i) water companies are ready to advise and financially support farmers in changing production methods; ii) changes of farming practices are tailored to the site-specific requirements; iii) farmers and water companies are interested in minimising the costs and environmental pressures as they benefit, for example, from modernization of farming methods, and reductions in cost of water treatment, and iv) voluntarily agreed commitments to change farming practices are often stricter than statutory rules. Moreover, precautionary rather than remedial measures are preferred. Tackling diffuse pollution is one of the main concerns of the WFD. CAs can enhance the cost-effectiveness of actions within the programmes of measures so that good water status is achieved by 2015. In CAs all relevant stakeholders, located in catchment areas of agricultural usage, can be involved. Thus, they can help to foster integrated water resources management. In particular, disproportionate costs of changing farming practices can be identified. With regard to the recent CAP reform, financial support for farmers will be linked to compliance with environmental standards and further commitments. This concerns both direct payments and agri-environmental programmes. The experience gained in CAs can provide information on best agricultural practices. Informed farmers are more ready to meet environmental requirements. Because CAs implement the most cost-effective changes in farming practice, it can be assumed that farmers will not face considerable costs due to the new EU water and agricultural policies. Some examples of CAs are described and the significance of CAs in the implementation of the WFD and CAP reform will be highlighted. The article closes with an outlook on the needs of future research activities.

Article 9 of the eu Water Framework Directive

2014 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 249-271 ◽  
Author(s):  
Erik Gawel
Keyword(s):  
Water Framework Directive ◽  
Water Protection ◽  
Practical Application ◽  
Mathematical Task ◽  
Member States ◽  
Strict Interpretation ◽  
Article 9 ◽  
The Common ◽  
Resource Costs ◽  
The Eu

Article 9 of the eu Water Framework Directive (wfd) requires Member States to take account of the principle of recovery of the costs of water services, including environmental and resource costs (ercs). Whilst legally the Member States have broad scope for discretion when applying Article 9, the idea that the eu legislator has effectively assigned the Member States a mathematical task to determine the level of cost recovery achieved for environmental and resource costs is increasingly gaining ground in the Common Implementation Strategy (cis) process. The present paper shows that this strict interpretation of taking account of environmental and resource costs has no basis in Article 9, is conceptually misleading, and could even prove counter-productive for the practical application of water protection.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document