This article addresses the Water Framework Directive and the legal norm of ‘good ecological status’, which refers to the structure and function of ecosystems. In terms of ecology, the concepts of good structure and function reflect a resilient ecosystem with a high level of adaptive capacity. However, the legal provisions of the Directive compromise this concept. The Directive's approach assumes that by quantifying certain fixed biological elements it is possible to accurately assess the structure and function of ecosystems. This approach is highly contestable, and undermines the possibility of attaining the objective of ‘good ecological status’. To improve the possibility of achieving ‘good ecological status’, we emphasise the need to first redefine ‘high ecological status’ as a state wherein the ecosystems maintain themselves independently of management; secondly, that the hydrological regime be addressed when assessing the bodies of water; and, thirdly, that traits, rather than the current ‘quality elements’ be used as variables.

The Water Framework Directive protects groundwater-dependent terrestrial ecosystems, but its concepts and definitions remain unclear. This paper aims to clarify the margin of discretion for the Member States, by applying a cross-disciplinary legal and biological analysis. We conclude that description of the protected ecosystems must include at least key components and processes and be based on a number of well-known groundwater-dependent habitats, but not restricted to habitats fed entirely by groundwater. We argue that the potential harm to terrestrial ecosystems by lowering the groundwater table should include the impact of both water abstraction and drainage, and, despite the discretion regarding scale, we recommend basing assessments and protection at a landscape-scale that aligns with the scale of bodies of groundwater, which typically includes a range of habitats in various ecological conditions.

This article explores the requirements of the Water Framework Directive with regard to the programme of measures for achieving environmental objectives. It analyses Article 11 of the directive and other legal provisions concerning the content of the programme, and identifies four kind of provisions: provisions for including measures for achieving environmental objectives, provisions for including measures for fulfilling other obligations in the Water Framework Directive, provisions for including measures for fulfilling obligations in other environmental directives, and provisions concerning the legal design of the Member States' water management. This article concludes that a number of the provisions in Article 11 direct the legal design of the Member States' water management in greater detail than that which follows from the obligation to achieve the environmental objectives of Article 4 of the directive, and that the freedom to decide on how to attain the environmental objectives of the directive is limited thereby.

This article provides a comparative analysis of the regulation of ammonia emissions, primarily from livestock installations, in Denmark, Germany and the Netherlands. It discusses the challenges of regulating agricultural ammonia emissions in view of the rulings of the Court of Justice of the European Union (cjeu) on Art. 6(3) of the Habitats Directive. It is argued that the need to ensure certainty concerning the absence of significant effects on Natura 2000 sites is challenged by the uncertainties regarding both the state of individual habitat types and the potential impact of individual projects. A more integrated or programmatic approach may provide an alternative approach to individual assessments, but it is necessary to ensure that additional loads from new or enlarged livestock installations are permitted in areas with high ammonia loads only where it is certain that a programmatic approach will ensure that there are no harmful effects. This might be an almost impossible task.