Examination of Witnesses(Questions 200-219)
BARONESS YOUNG,
DR MARTIN
GRIFFITHS AND
DR ANDREW
SKINNER
WEDNESDAY 6 NOVEMBER 2002
Chairman
200. Just for the record, you are Baroness Young,
since you are wearing your House of Lords doings around your neck.
(Baroness Young) I absolve myself from that.
201. Chief Executive of the Environment Agency.
Dr Martin Griffiths, who is Head of Water Quality, and Dr Andrew
Skinner, who is Head of Environmental Quality. Can I make a confession
first. I am finding it incredibly difficult just to get my head
around what the Water Framework Directive really is. We have just
been hearing about the need for consultation. If somebody came
and consulted me on it I think I would find myself groping for
some sort of landing light, some physical thing I could get hold
of that would give me a way into it. Without repetition, hesitation
or deviation, do you think you could just tell me in a nutshell
if you found yourself on the doorstep of 12 Acacia Avenue and
you happened to find some unfortunate pensioner there and you
were telling them what this is all about, what would you tell
them it is all about?
(Baroness Young) For a start I think I would not try
to go to Acacia Avenue and talk about the Water Framework Directive
because one of our key principles is that when we are involved
in public consultation or engagement with stakeholders we actually
talk to them about things that they are interested in rather than
things that we are interested in. I think that is the fundamental
principle. Basically the selling line for the Water Framework
Directive is that it is a framework that integrates a whole load
of things that are happening in the water environment already
in this country and gives them a degree of bringing together so
that they do not fight against each other, that they actually
produce the most cost-effective results and that they take a holistic
look at catchments as well as rivers and move away from the traditional
approach to regulating discharges and abstractions and look at
not only the way in which river catchments operate but also the
way in which land management impacts on the quality of our rivers.
I would probably lapse gently, if I was stuck with Acacia Avenue,
into salmon and otters on occasions but I would also lapse into
cleaner rivers in our cities, which are currently still less satisfactory
than rural rivers. I would talk about the ability for effective
catchment and river basin management to add value in terms of
regeneration and to provide better quality of life because of
a clean river environment and the sorts of habitats that that
supports. I would talk about more sustainable water supplies for
agriculture and for industry and for people in the face of climate
change. It is about how do we do a good job by the management
of our water resources in this country in an integrated way.
202. Let us say that I have digested all that
and I have read all the stuff about River Basin Management Plans,
what I deduce from this is that there is going to be some incredibly
powerful supremo or body which is going to say "You do that,
you do the other. Farmers, you stop this. No, do not build there",
but when you look at it closely you find it difficult to see how
it is all going to actually happen. You have set up the management
board but are they going to be in the business of co-ordinating
it, trying to persuade somebody to do this and heckling somebody
to do that and encouraging somebody else to do the other? How
does it all get done at the end of the day? What powers do the
people who are doing it have to get it done?
(Baroness Young) A lot of this will depend on getting
the right degree of engagement and commitment from a whole range
of bodies, as is the case at the moment in the management of the
water environment. There will be a range of folk who are extremely
important to this, particularly local authorities, developers,
farmers. That range of stakeholders will have to be brought into
the process in a variety of ways because what is appropriate,
for instance, in dealing with a Regional Development Agency is
less appropriate in dealing with a one-man band farmer somewhere.
We have got to find the right mechanisms for informing, for engaging,
for involving and for helping people take part in decision making
at the level that is appropriate to them. We will need some additional
legislative powers and we would very much like to see duties laid
on some of these key stakeholders, particularly local authorities
with their planning role.
203. But as things stand, and are likely to
stand, the decisions which will be taken once we are down this
road and have got there will be taken by precisely the same people
who are taking the decisions now, but hopefully they will all
be doing it in a co-ordinated way according to some grand strategy.
Nobody is going to take over the decisions from anybody else.
Planning is not going to go to some supremo or CAP is not suddenly
going to be repatriated into some office in Wigan or wherever.
(Baroness Young) In fact, it is the usual fall guy
act for the Environment Agency. We do get given these jobs where
we are given the responsibility for delivering something but then
you discover you can only do it through 6,000 or 7,000 other bodies
or, in the case of farmers, 180,000 farmers. We will continue
to hopefully hone up the techniques for developing those partnerships
and those stakeholder engagement processes.
204. When you said a minute ago that you needed
a few more powers, we have agreed that you are there to try and
get other people to do what needs to be done to deliver this but
you may need that little bit more power to your elbow, what bits
of power are you talking about?
(Baroness Young) The planning one is the major one.
Local authorities are clearly very key in this. The one thing
that I think took quite a lot of people a long time to discover
about the Water Framework Directive is that it is not just about
water, it is probably more about land use than anything else,
so the two major impacts on land use are planning development
and agriculture and both of those we have got to find ways of
dealing with. I do not think we will ever have strong legislative
holds over individual farmers, but we certainly would want to
see planning authorities with a duty to take account of the requirements
of the Water Framework Directive in their planning role. I should,
for the record, not downgrade these two chaps here since they
are both doctors. If I could ask Dr Skinner if he wants to add
anything on that one.
(Dr Skinner) There are things that we need as an agency
to be amplified in terms of our regulatory toolkit. Some of those
are proposed under the Water Bill, others will come by other means.
It is actually a partnership and it is the way in which all the
powers which the various parties involved use and use together.
The binding agent is not a supremo, it is the River Basin Plan
and the commitments in there, which is a statutory plan under
the stewardship of the Secretary of State, subject to scrutiny
by Brussels, which will be the way in which UK Limited, England
and Wales Limited in our case, is over-viewed in terms of how
well that is working.
205. There is going to be an enormous overlap,
is there not, because the river basin is a geographical area which
is wholly at odds with any known administrative structure that
exists in the United Kingdom at the moment. You might be dealing
with half a dozen counties, God knows how many district authorities,
RDAs, and many of them will then have to cope with a whole different
series of River Basin Plans themselves. It is going to be a tremendous
job for anybody to unravel where all these rivers are going administratively.
(Dr Skinner) We are not in new ground here. This is
the way we work and have worked in the Agency and in predecessor
bodies in the past. Water, because it transcends administrative
boundaries, is something which has to be managed in that way and
a lot of the things that we do, the LEAPs that have been talked
about, the Flood Management Plans, is not new ground, it is being
raised to a higher profile.
206. It is not ground at all.
(Dr Skinner) There are issues about the way that is
understood and consulted on. This is a better way of doing old
things rather than something that is completely new. Indeed, the
problem you describe is a lot more of a political tension in other
Member States where they have not had the experience that we have
had. I am not complacent or suggesting that we have got it all
licked but we have got a head start here and we are used to it.
It is a matter of raising the game rather than inventing a new
game.
Chairman: I suppose at least it is downhill
all the way in a sense.
Mr Jack
207. With the forbearance of the Committee I
would like to just put to you a little story about Biodiversity
Action Plans which I think may have some relevance to what we
are discussing but also to illustrate the enormity of the task
that you are involved in. It was about four years ago when I attended
the launch of the North West Biodiversity Action Plan in Warrington
at United Utilities' headquarters. Last year I began to wonder
what happened to it because I had not seen any local manifestations
of it, so I wrote to the Government Office in the North West and
they wrote back to me and said "The DEFRA Regional Biodiversity
Sub-Group will be reporting shortly to the England Biodiversity
Group on the effectiveness of regional biodiversity fora within
the context of regional governmental framework". I then waited
to see what happened and I became advised that something called
Champs was relevant to this, so I wrote some more letters about
Champs, and this seemed to be the key to unlocking biodiversity
decisions in and around the coastal areas of Lancashire where
I live in the Ribble. Then I got a letter from DEFRA saying "No,
you do not have to have Champs". Then I wrote to the county's
Environment Director who said that he was waiting for this strategic
framework to arrive so that the work of the Lancashire Biodiversity
Action Plan Steering Group, which involved English Nature, Lancashire
County Council, Wildlife Trust for Lancashire, Environment Agency,
NFU, CLA, RSPB, Central and West Lancashire Chamber of Commerce,
National Gamekeepers' Organisation and the Lancashire Association
of Parish and Town Councils, could all contribute to this wonderful
exercise. I could go on and I could read out more and more of
this jargon laden correspondence about producing a Biodiversity
Plan to deal either with salt marshes, river estuaries or Lancashire
as a whole. It seems to me we have been waiting years to get our
act together on one part that will inform this exercise and regional
planning guidance and nothing but a lot of letters appear to have
been produced. Against this background, how are you ever going
to get your act together for a Water Framework Directive?
(Baroness Young) Could I comment on that because it
is something near and dear to my heart in knowing how on earth
we have managed to get biodiversity action planning to become
a paper producing product rather than a wildlife producing product.
I think the lesson from that is two-fold. One is that life is
complicated and there is a whole range of stakeholders that need
to be got together. I noticed that 12 Acacia Avenue was not on
that list. The reality is these are stakeholders rather than the
public. There are other mechanisms we need to inform the public
even if we are not going to engage every one of the 54 million.
The other message from that is the Biodiversity Action Plan process
is a useful one because it is a uniting feature. The thing about
the Water Framework Directive is that it is a uniting feature
but we have got to make sure that we do not invent totally bureaucratic
processes, which is why we are not very keen on the idea of plethoras
of standing committees, we are much keener on looking at what
the appropriate mechanism for engaging the right folk in the right
place at the right level at the right cost is as we move through
the process. So, for example, at the moment the national stakeholder
body is probably about the right level because we are dealing
with technical stuff that quite frankly nobody else wants to get
their hands dirty with. When we are into the business of making
effective decisions about the way in which the strategic future
of some of these river basins will go we will want to talk much
more to local stakeholders and, indeed, help engage the public,
but let us not make it paper and bureaucracy driven, let us make
it fit for purpose, light touch and cost effective.
208. That is a lovely bit of painting over what
has happened. The point I am getting at here is we are talking
about an exercise which has been going on for some years. The
Biodiversity Action Plan was the result of some more years' worth
of work. Two gigantic tomes of analysis were produced. I would
have thought by now people would have got their acts together
because the information contained in it does have some profound
effects on the analysis of flora and fauna in the river basin
areas that you are now going to create another piece of superstructure
to deal with. If this lot cannot get their act together on these
things now, what confidence do I have that the mechanism that
you have described will actually deliver the kind of co-ordination
and engagement of all of these bodies when some of the basic information
that you need in the process you have described to us is not even
available?
(Baroness Young) There are two things there. One is
that the key focus for us in the Framework Directive is outcomes.
There is absolutely no point in all of this going ahead if, in
fact, the environment does not get better. There are mechanisms
for judging the environmental outcomes as part of the Framework
Directive process. That is going to be showdown time because if
the environmental indicators do not get any better we know we
are not making an impact. The other issue is about information.
Biodiversity came from a long way back in the queue, quite frankly,
and a considerable amount of work has gone on over the last 30,
40, 50 years in pulling together information about qualitative
and quantitative issues around rivers. We are in a much better
state, which is one of the reasons why we have not entered into
the pilot project process with a pilot in the UK because much
of that technical understanding and sophisticated insight about
the nature of the rivers and the way they work and the data and
information is already there because as a nation we have been
ahead of the game compared with many other European states. I
am sure Andrew or Martin will want to comment on how we avoid
getting into the mire of the Biodiversity Action Plan process.
(Dr Skinner) What you describe is a lesson in how
not to do it. I think the issue arises around the perhaps nebulous
nature of what is being sought in Biodiversity Action Plans. Although
we get to test these things out, and we plan to do so, it seems
to us that the way we will actually bridge that gap between achieving
the outcomes and getting some understanding of it is by making
the issues locally relevant and specific. All catchments are not
the same, they have different issues. Achieving status in different
catchments requires different things in different places. The
experience we have with, I will use the local Environment Agency
Plans, LEAPs, as an example, is they are things that people can
engage with, although not everyone wants to engage with them,
and they are understandable. That seems to me a model which will
give more confidence than the one that you have described, but
it is a risk and we have got to find ways of doing it and be aware
that the whole process of characterisation and making plans is
quite easy, and in some ways by some of the work in Europe is
being turned into a bit of an art form in its own right, and we
have got to be very hard on that.
Patrick Hall
209. Both Andrew Skinner and Barbara Young said
words to the effect that Britain is ahead of the game in terms
of implementing the Water Framework Directive. I do not think
I have misrepresented what either of them said there. I think
it is really important that we explore the evidence that we are
ahead of the game because there may be some people who think that
we have not made a particularly good start in this direction,
so how is it that we are ahead of the game? What is it about the
Environment Agency, for example, that gives us the means of addressing
these issues better than other European Union states?
(Dr Skinner) I was not speaking about the Environment
Agency, I was talking about the country as a whole. I was making
the point in respect of the way our current institutions are set
up. I was addressing the question of the complexity of interactions
between public authorities of various kinds and catchments. What
I am saying is that since 1945 through flooding and right through
other environmental issues we have had catchment based planning
and interaction between bodies like the Agency and local authorities
and they have been on a catchment basis. It is in that sense that
we have the experience. It is not experience which is sufficient
for the purpose but it is an advantage and it gives us some confidence
that we can handle these cross-boundary multi-agency issues. I
said I was not complacent about it, I am just saying that we do
have some experience under our belt about how these institutional
links might work together. In terms of implementing the Directive,
that is a different issue.
210. Are we ahead in implementing the Directive?
(Baroness Young) Can I just comment on that. If you
look at the Directive timetable following when DEFRA is going
to hit the timetable for regulation, we are certainly going to
hit for characterisation. We have got a head start in that much
of the catchment based planning and management you have heard
about has produced data sets and insights into the nature of these
rivers and the catchments that perhaps, for example, the Irish
do not have or that does not exist in totality around the Danube
and that is why the pilots are having to be done there. That has
meant that we are able to build on what was a very good start
in the UK and move forward to hit those early timetables. We will
then run out of oomph if we are not careful because at that stage
we are out in an area where nobody has got any experience other
than the innate stuff we have got from dealing with catchments
in the past, and that is really looking at the whole River Basin
Plan issue. Our early head start runs out if we do not keep the
momentum up, so we do need to keep that momentum up so that we
move forward from where we are.
211. Does that not link to the very telling
and amusing but relevant story that my colleague just told us
about people willing to talk to each other and work together on
an ad hoc voluntary basis? We are doing that but it does not lead
to the rigorous approach that is needed for issues like the Water
Framework Directive. I do want to compare with our European Union
partners. Where is it that we are definitely ahead of them that
we do not need to, for example, have a pilot river basin study
and they do?
(Baroness Young) Let me just touch briefly on the
differences between the Biodiversity Action Plan process and the
Water Framework Directive. The Biodiversity Action Plan has no
statutory basis other than a very, very gentle one that we managed
to stuff into the Countryside and Rights of Way Act when it was
going through the House, so the drivers simply are not there.
Much of what is in the Framework Directive, both the pre-existing
activities in terms of water quantity and water quality, has got
a statutory basis, as does some of the habitats stuff, therefore
I think we have got a different scenario there and that is why
that is struggling, quite frankly, I think it has never had enough
statutory oomph behind it. We sit on, and Martin is very heavily
involved in, the CIS process Europe-wide, so he can talk about
his perception of how we are doing compared with the rest of Europe.
(Dr Griffiths) I must say that it is seen in many
parts of Europe as the British Directive because it was brought
in to consolidate catchment management of the water cycle as a
whole. That is seen as a huge advantage. When you are dealing
with cross-border rivers, like the Rhine, like the Danube, the
problems that Holland have are compounded by the problems of Germany,
Austria and others up there. That is the main coming together
of the whole. We have been working this way for many years, 30
or 40 years. We are used to planning river quality on outcomes.
We also have a catchment based privatised water industry, which
again is thinking about how to protect that resource, how to allocate
it, how to deal with scarce resources. Also the investment rounds
by the water industry over the last 15 years or so have brought
them up to speed with things like the Urban Waste Water Treatment
Directive, which is largely in place, all of which are a very
good foundation for this. Work on the Habitats Directive again
is starting to give us relationships between ecology and the chemistry
and the other physical factors that fit in. There I think we are
in good stead. I think we should exploit this in the United Kingdom.
Our German counterparts have done a lot of work and we have done
a lot of work with the German lander to let them understand
how we go about it. They see this as a big way forward to dealing
with their water problems.
212. Can I just qualify something Baroness Young
said, a decision was taken not to undertake one of the pilots,
become involved in one of the pilot studies, because the kinds
of information and research that such a study would aim to produce
was already available in this country. Could I just ask, the decision
was taken by DEFRA, presumably on the advice of the Environment
Agency and other agencies?
(Baroness Young) The pilots were very much driven
by the need to promote some countries to get the technical information
and insight but also to include issues like public participation.
We looked with DEFRA at the resources available, both technical
and money, and came to the conclusion that there were other things
that needed that sort of focus, particularly making sure that
the Common Implementation Strategy went in the right direction.
You know Europe: if you want to see bureaucracy, have it invented
by a common implementation strategy. Our view now is that we are
probably at the point where there needs to be some sort of piloting
of other issues as other pilots are doing across Europe. Dr Skinner
has been in discussions with DEFRA about where we might go forward
on that.
(Dr Skinner) There is no objection in principle to
doing this, it is a matter of priorities, resources and the right
time. As Barbara Young said we, with DEFRA, took the view that
the resources available at the Agency at the time were best used
to input the Common Implementation Strategy because, as we said
in our evidence, decisions about whether boundaries are between
the various categories of classification are crucial in terms
of cost and how effective it will be. We do believe that some
of the basic issues, the data capture around the catchment, which
is what some of the pilots are testing, is something that we have
a lot of experience on. Reflecting on what we have been saying
already about the issues of institutional engagement we will focus
on institutions rather than the public because in many cases,
as I have already explained, the plan would be implemented by
the powers that other bodies have, including in addition with
the agency. That is something that is new and needs to be worked
on. The kind of proposals we propose to work on and present to
DEFRA are round building what we have and linking it to the characterisation
of catchment, which is going to start right now and go forward
for the next two years, to use the information from that to test
out the ways in which, using the comments we made about making
it practical and unbureaucratic, we can get the institutional
engagement. I think it is no good going along and talking in abstract
about how planning authorities, RDAs, agencies and drainage boards
are going to engage we have to talk about some real life examples
and that is what we can bring forward from the characterisation
process, which is the next job which has to be done to implement
the Directive.
(Baroness Young) Can I take a point forward from that,
I think the most difficult stakeholder group to engage with is
going to be farmers. We do need to use the changes that are happening
elsewhere in the Common Agricultural Policy reform in this country
and in the midterm review to make sure that farmers are best supported
to be able to play their role in the Framework Directive. We are
involved in a variety of discussions with DEFRA looking at the
entry level scheme for farmers which will bring a broader sway
of farmers into some sort of environmental programme and also
working with the National Farmers' Union on environmental management
standards, which will be a simple way of farmers thinking in a
systematic way about their environmental impact and how as part
of their farm business they can manage in ways which will reduce
their environmental impact and help them help us deliver the Framework
Directive. It is going to be horses for courses in this one. The
sort of things we are going to have to do in order to get farmers
moving in the right direction are going to be very different from
those things that we want to do with a local community and engaging
with them about what they want for their water course. Our view
of the consultative and informative process is, how do we get
delivery, how do we better the environment? That is going to be
our primary objective.
213. Baroness Young, if all of the leaks are
to be believed in the Queen's speech next Wednesday there will
be a Water Bill and there will also be a Planning Bill, would
you expect the Water Framework Directive to influence those Bills
or are they completely disconnected issues?
(Baroness Young) The Water Bill will certainly contain
some mechanisms without which we would find it difficult to get
the Water Framework Directive delivered. I am not as clear yet
what is going to be in the Planning Bill. I do not think anybody
is. We would be interested in seeing how there could be responsibilities
laid on planning authorities to take account of the water Framework
Directive. Andrew will be able to talk in more detail about what
is in the Water Bill that helps take the Water Framework Directive
forward.
(Dr Skinner) The Water Bill in draft form has some
essential elements, particularly in relation to abstraction licensing,
we would find it difficult to implement the Framework Directive
without that amendment to our powers. They are not substantial
and they will not be needed immediately for the Framework Directive
but they are there for other reasons as well, they come forward
from other consultation documents on water resource management.
The Government has taken the view that the Framework Directive
itself would probably implement regulations and therefore that
is not an essential part of any future bill. The issue of, particularly
planning authorities and the way in which the River Basin Plan
achieves its statutory status and in some way is engaged on the
delivery of those parts of the action plans, River Basin Plans
which are dealt with by the land use planning issues, that is
a material issue and it is something we cannot see how that can
be done without some enabling arrangements through planning legislation.
214. If I can move on to looking at timetables,
there is criticism that the timetables are unrealistic. I have
figures somewhere, the duties are for 2003, we are talking about
commencing in 2012 and concluding by 2025. If those dates are
wrong please tell me. Is this real politics? Is this really practical,
the ability to deliver those dates, given that we are talking
about a pretty diversified group of countries, even more so when
the new entrants come in. We have discussed that in a previous
sessions. If this is not going to fall into some sort of contempt
who is going to get it right, drive it along and keep to those
timetables?
(Baroness Young) This is a cyclical process and I
think it is going to be one of those that builds up quite frankly.
We all make the timetable. It will depend on the depth and sophistication
and the quality of the first cut, as it were. I suspect that will
be the case for other European countries, particularly the accession
states, where they may get some sort of management plan but it
may not be much cop in the first instance but it is going to be
a start for the next review and on a six yearly basis. We will
hit our timetable here but we will have to make some decisions
about what is achievable, about best-fit solutions, about the
degree of intensity and sophistication of the plan we can produce.
That, no doubt, will be hotly contentious.
(Dr Griffiths) I think that the overall idea of a
five or six year cyclical plan, we use this with the water industry,
that is a very good way of going forward. We would like to see
it extended. Again the Framework Directive gives us the iteration
of the 20 or 30 year plan we need for things like water resources.
It is for others to make sure that some of the commitments that
are needed over a much longer time frame are there to allow good
quality planning and the right development of assets, not only
in the water industry but also in the other industries, for example
agricultural, it is that stable platform with an iterative basis.
We go about regulation with industry, it is very useful to say,
you must reach this standard in this time to give them a chance
to finance and plan ahead in terms of what other factors are in
place and then to go back and revisit and fine tune. We are very
much thinking about fine tuning in those later iterations we hope
but nevertheless there will be things that start to appear. At
the moment we have made a great deal of progress with point source
pollution in England and Wales and we are now starting to notice
some of the diffuse source issues. It is an iterative process.
I think the philosophy of the iterative plan is, yes, the start
is quite ambitious and will stretch us very hard. We need to make
sure we do it fit-for-purpose and in a constructive way to allow
us to plan and to get the finances that are necessary.
215. The key elements are going to be how you
monitor and report on improvements, will this require primary
legislation to set up a mechanism in this country, which is obviously
comparable to what is going to happen else where? Can you give
me an indication of what progress is being made on that at the
moment?
(Dr Skinner) The second consultation document makes
a statement on behalf of the government that they will do this
by enabling regulations and not by primary legislation. That can
be done. The monitoring framework is in place, it needs to be
modified and extended and developed and some of the CIS work is
going to make sure that is consistent across Europe. The reporting
cycle, which we expect the Commission to take a close interest
in to integrate and compare, will be in place. Of course there
will be long term changes on top of this, climate change is a
very good example. We would expect the re-evaluation of plans
in 2025 to say different things to what they say in 2008 not because
people have changed their mind or have different priorities but
merely because we know more about big issues driving environmental
change. That needs to be in the system to enable it to adapt to
changing circumstances. I expect some of the River Basin Plans
will contain commitments to investigate things to find out information
that is not available to allow reasoned judgments at that time
so they be incorporated. That is the way the current pricing review
in the water industry works. We do work in one cycle to inform
cost effective decisions in the next one.
216. How much flexibility is there around start
and end date, given you talk about the cycles? That is going to
make it quite complicated at a super European level to be able
to monitor and report on progress being made across Europe. We
have our monitoring and reporting mechanisms, how competent would
they be and how transferable would they be in terms of the wider
issues?
(Dr Skinner) The dates in the Directive are mandatory.
217. They are!
(Dr Skinner) I expect the Commission to follow that
rigorously. We have issues about the fact that domestic dates
and cycles do not fit in. We are doing something called CAMS at
the moment, Catchment Abstraction Management Plans, which have
many elements in common with the Framework Directive in terms
of cyclical review but the dates are not in synch with European
dates and we are going to have to adapt our programme to fit the
Framework Directive dates, like other countries who at that stage
will do the same. The advantage will then be that at a European
level there will be an overview using a monitoring system which
has been informed by the Common Implementation Strategy using
data to enforce the Directive. Providing everyone plays by the
rules it should be a very good way of Europe having an overview
of its environmental issues.
(Baroness Young) There is one other domestic issue
in that, that is the current cycle for the water price review
for water companies is a five year one out of kilter with the
Framework Directive process and, to be honest, almost quite unhelpful.
If we are looking at the Water Framework Directive in the long
term we are looking at the long term change and long term management
of river basins. Having a five year stop/start process in the
water price review is quite unhelpful. We have been talking to
the water regulator about how that price review framework around
the commercial water companies can begin to take account of some
of these longer term issues in water company planning so that
we are not restricting them entirely to what they have agreed
in terms of their financial framework for the five year period.
(Dr Skinner) If might be worth saying, again your
question about fitting across Europe and maintaining standards,
how important the Common Implementation Strategy is. I believe
it is a first in Europe because with previous directives what
has tended to happen is that each Member State has gone away,
written its own regulations and done what it thought was necessary
and then five years down the road the Commission complains when
somebody takes a action, "oh dear, we have not got that quite
right". This is going to give us some guidance, it is only
guidance, to try to get that platform about setting thresholds
for marine freshwater, and things like this, that will enable
us to check and to get a better idea amongst Member States as
to what thresholds we should be aiming for and how we go about
that.
Mr Mitchell
218. Baroness Young said this was about land
use rather than anything else, I wonder whether one of the biggest
changes in the next few years is going to be in water use. Salmon
farming is flourishing in Scotland, we are moving on to turbot
farming, and I understand from Norway that their experimenting
in cod farming. All this has an effect on estuarial waters, does
it not, what is going to happen? If this is going to be rapidly
developed, as it may well be, given the fact that the CFP has
pretty well abolished cod in the North Sea, is it going to be
a blight on the development of fish farming or how are you going
to fit it into the Directive?
(Baroness Young) I am not wholly briefed on this one.
Certainly our view would be that an environmental assessment study
of the fish farming methodology is vital if you bear in mind what
happened as a result of intensive fish farming in Scottish estuaries.
That will be an issue we with our fisheries regulation hat on
would want to take account of.
(Dr Skinner) Any activity, new or historic, will have
to be managed for the regulations to meet the standards set by
the Directive. In a sense that gives a platform which does not
exist at the moment in quite the same way, so that new rising
industry, not only fish farming, but any other has to conform
to a common platform across Europe. I would not see that as being
a huge issue and certainly not outside the controlling Framework
of the Directive.
219. If the competition is Norway are they observing
the Directive as well?
(Dr Skinner) There are always these issues. Norway
is kind of on the margin of the Directive and says that it follows
it but it does not have the obligation to do so.
|
