of the authors report is based on their conclusion that the obligations imposed by the WFD on the member states are so called obligations of best effort, and not obligations of result. And even more important as the authors let this conclusion form the basis for their further analysis of the WFDs implementation requirements. Sweden, aleris Specialistvård, landstinget i Östergötland. A further purpose was to investigate and analyse whether the directives environmental objectives might be considered implemented in a functional way. Download, edit, views PaperRank. This complexity urges the necessity to make use of and discuss previous legal research (which is both voluminous and well-known).
Christina Olsen Lundh Göteborg University - Academia
The deterioration ban, have been ignored in the authors analysis. Nor is there any critical examination of the extent to which existing Swedish legislation might be an obstacle to the implementation of the WFD.
The WFD was adopted in 2000 and its implementation in the member states is in many respects a complex process; mainly due to the difficulties interpreting its fourth article (which the authors points out) and its many alternative interpretations. On behalf of the Swedish Committee on Environmental Objectives (Miljömålsberedningen Magnus. These methodological shortcomings, combined with the initial conclusion on obligations of best effort have clearly affected the authors subsequent conclusions in the report. However, despite the authors ambition to take a comprehensive approach, they fail when it comes to address and discuss available doctrine, official reports and studies. The purpose of their work was to clarify whether the WFD: s environmental objectives of good status in the aquatic environment in the Union are implemented in Swedish law in a legally correct way.