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 legal objective for surface water in the EU is ‘good ecological status’, as established by the Water Framework Directive, with a timeframe of 15, 21 or 27 years. To reach this objective, suitable legal instruments are needed, and quality standards are among the instruments intended to improve the ecological status. However, both the Directive and quality standards are founded on reductionism, risking an over-application of over-simplified concepts, probably reducing biological diversity. A realistic and more appropriate timeframe for river basin rehabilitation would be around 100 years, emphasizing several concerns, such as the importance of encompassing the entire life history of species, the shift in human perceptions, the systemic unity of humans and ecosystems, environmental irreducibility, site-specific reference points, and the divergence of the assessment of water quality and the general ecological status of a river basin. From a legal standpoint, a century emphasizes a temporal agreement and a normative commitment to the generations to come. Ecologically, a century time-scale gives enough time for the processes of evolution, dispersal and recolonization and succession to re-establish stable, more diverse biological communities in physically rehabilitated habitats and river basins, whereas the present timetable for achievement of the ecological objectives does not.

The Water Framework Directive is innovative in EU law, and the informal role of the Common Implementation Strategy (CIS) guidance documents makes the Directive’s regulative space complex. This analysis raises questions about the legitimacy of interpretative elements found in CIS guidance. The CIS interpretations seem to result in only one element of ‘ecological status’ being assessed (structure, and not functioning), generally weakening the obligation of ‘good ecological status’. Using ecological knowledge in guidance that contradicts the main legal construct on which it is based raises questions about the CIS, and also the ‘legal effect’ bar established by the Court of Justice, as the CIS may produce guidance documents to the Directive that alter the legally binding objective, although not providing enough legal effects for a review.

Every system that manages or assesses biodiversity rests on a simplification of its complexity. The simplification of biodiversity is debatable and difficult; even, for example, regarding the elements on which the assessment and management should focus. Nevertheless, within law, there are assessment and management schemes that are based on a simplified understanding of the meaning of [the construct of] ‘biodiversity’. For example, the Ecosystem Approach, European Union (EU) Habitats Directive, and the EU Water Framework Directive try to assess the status of different biodiversity elements based on their different ‘biodiversity’ simplifications. As the conservation of biodiversity is a vital global question, it is important to include the right elements within the ‘biodiversity’ construct to achieve no net loss. Based on international and EU law, I conceptualize a consistent legal simplification of ‘biodiversity’.

This article examines the transnational dimensions of the European Union’s Water Framework Directive (wfd). Given that 60% of the waters covered by the wfd are transboundary, effective management requires transcending traditional legal frameworks of the nation-state. Accordingly, regulations for surface water and groundwater challenge the conventional binary division between national and transnational law. As water moves across borders, decision-making in one nation incorporates external elements into the policy processes of other nations sharing the water. The aim of this paper is to illustrate the transnational elements within the wfd and to present two cases where external factors transcend national borders.

This article provides a qualitative analysis of stakeholder perspectives on the European Commission’s revision of the REACH Regulation, highlighting how these perspectives reveal deeper epistemic and normative tensions in EU risk governance. Beyond summarising stakeholder positions, the paper offers an interpretive reading of how the precautionary principle is invoked to justify competing approaches to scientific uncertainty, risk assessment, and regulatory simplification. The analysis identifies three cross-cutting themes—knowledge and precaution, risk versus hazard, and simplification versus improved protection—and discusses how these reflect divergent legal and epistemological visions of chemical safety in EU. By contextualising stakeholder reasoning within EU regulatory traditions, the study contributes to understanding how precaution continues to shape, and be contested within, contemporary EU chemicals governance.