House of Commons - Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Minutes of Evidence

Memorandum submitted by the World Wildlife Fund (WWF-UK)

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

"We want the UK to be amongst the leaders in Europe in ensuring successful implementation."

Michael Meacher and Sue Essex, March 2001[2]

WWF-UK welcomes the decision of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee to hold an inquiry into the implementation of the EU Water Framework Directive (WFD). The Committee's findings will be a valuable addition to the debate on how to make the most of the unique piece of legislation. WWF-UK hopes that the Committee's report will help the UK achieve the ambitions set out by Michael Meacher and Sue Essex.

The WFD offers us a unique opportunity to put in place a system for sustainable management of rivers and their catchments. In particular, the WFD should help to redress the environmental damage caused by decades of mismanagement of water and wetlands. The WFD could also contribute to sustainable regeneration of the countryside and provide a mechanism for tackling issues such as flooding and pollution of drinking water from intensive agriculture.

In order to make these gains, implementation efforts must follow the spirit, as well as the letter, of the WFD. Despite some positive developments, current indications are that the Government is taking a narrow approach to implementation that is geared more towards minimum compliance than maximum gain. If this attitude prevails, WWF-UK believes that in December 2015 we will still be suffering from the same problems of inadequate flood management, eutrophication of our rivers, lakes and coasts and declining diversity and populations of wildlife.

One of the most promising initiatives from DEFRA on the WFD—the Stakeholder Sounding Board—has been allowed to die a quiet death after just three meetings. WWF-UK is keen to see this Board resurrected immediately as an open forum in which key national stakeholders can discuss with DEFRA issues surrounding transposition and implementation of the WFD.

A change in attitude can only come about through political leadership. Michael Meacher and Sue Essex wanted the UK to be leaders within Europe. WWF-UK would be delighted to see this happen and is committed to helping. But the process must be led by Government.

Specific issues on which WWF-UK believes the Government must act include:

— the need to encourage sustainable solutions to water quality problems, in particular diffuse water pollution from agriculture, that address the root causes of pollution instead of merely facilitating expensive, short-term technical fixes

— the need to ensure that the significant and increasing levels of expenditure on flood defence contribute to, rather than detract from, efforts to achieve WFD targets—eg through encouraging wetland restoration and washland creation wherever technically feasible

— the need to streamline and integrate the water management framework so that river basin management plans should become the single overarching framework for water management in the UK

— the need to put in place measures for better public participation in WFD implementation that go beyond the current emphasis on publishing consultation papers and, as required by Article 14 of the WFD, encourage the "active involvement" of stakeholders and the public in water management.

— the need to ensure capacity among all stakeholders, but especially within the Environment Agency, is sufficient to achieve the WFD targets.

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 WWF, the global environment network, is the world's largest and most experienced conservation organisation. WWF has 52 offices worldwide working in more than 90 countries. In 2000, with the support of almost five million regular supporters, the WWF network spent just under £250 million on conservation work to protect the environment for people and nature.

1.2 Freshwater ecosystems are the lifeblood of the planet. WWF believes that achieving the central Water Framework Directive target of good ecological and chemical status for all waters by 2015 will have clear benefits for people and wildlife across Europe. To this end, one of the priorities of WWF's European Living Waters Programme (formerly the European Freshwater Programme) is encouraging successful implementation of the WFD in all EU Member States and Accession Countries.

1.3 WWF's activities on the WFD have included:

— Actively contributing to the technical guidance on implementation currently being drafted by the EU Common Implementation Strategy working groups for the WFD.

1.4 Closer to home, WWF-UK is now establishing a new Natural Rivers Programme that will include model projects tackling issues of particular concern, such as flooding and pollution from agriculture. One of the main outputs from the Natural Rivers Programme will be a model river basin management plan that could be used by all stakeholders as a practical resource for implementing the WFD.

2. CURRENT WATER ISSUES AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE WFD IN ENGLAND AND WALES

2.1 There are many challenges facing those responsible for managing the UK's rivers and their catchments. In socio-economic terms, the countryside is in crisis with declining farm incomes exacerbated by the BSE and foot and mouth disease crises, provision of rural services becoming ever more sparse and increased political dissatisfaction with the way these and other issues are being treated by the Government. In addition, flooding seems to be on the increase—perhaps partly because of global warming, but certainly made worse through land management practices and planning policies that have encouraged both higher runoff rates from the land and development on floodplains.

2.2 There has been some good news on the environment with populations of key freshwater species such as otters rising and the level of gross organic pollution in water falling thanks to improved wastewater treatment. However, DEFRA and Environment Agency press releases suggesting that our rivers and wetlands are in rude health are misleading. Real problems remain:

2.3 The UK is not alone in facing these challenges—most EU Member States and Accession Countries are experiencing similar problems, caused by historic mismanagement of land and water. As is made clear in the recitals and in Article 1, the WFD was brought into force specifically to help restore the balance.

2.4 Despite UK's mediocre record in implementing previous EU Directives there have been some encouraging signs that the Government is taking seriously the challenge of the WFD. In addition to the fine words from Michael Meacher and Sue Essex, the Chief Executive of the Environment Agency has written that "the Water Framework Directive will represent a major step forward for water management"[10] and the Agency's recent technical consultation paper included several progressive interpretations of the WFD's requirements and purposes. Staff from the Agency have played important roles in, and committed significant amounts of time to, several of the working groups established under the EU Common Implementation Strategy. Within DEFRA there have been some promising initiatives such as the WFD Stakeholder Sounding Board (but see paragraph 2.5 below) and recent discussions with stakeholders on mechanisms for tackling diffuse water pollution from agriculture.

2.5 However, these positive aspects have been outweighed by indications that the Government are unable or unwilling to make maximum use of the WFD to deliver a truly sustainable framework for land and water management. In fact, on several key issues, the Government has taken a more negative stance. For instance:

— The UK delegation to the Strategic Co-ordination Group of the EU Common Implementation Strategy has been criticised for over-emphasising the limitations of the guidance notes emerging from that Strategy. For example, the UK delegation has emphasised the need for the guidance notes to be non-legally binding and, at times, has seemed interested in guidance more for minimum compliance and avoidance of infraction proceedings than for best practice in implementation.

— There seems to be an obsession in DEFRA and in parts of the Environment Agency with "no gold plating" of the WFD. In practice this has meant that many sensible ideas for implementation—such as including Sites of Special Scientific Interest in the register of Protected Areas required under Article 6 of the WFD—have not been given sufficient consideration.

— There is a reluctance on the part of DEFRA to clarify the official view of the date on which the "no deterioration" duty set out in Article 4 of the WFD comes into force. No deterioration of the status of water bodies is a cornerstone of the WFD. The spirit of the WFD demands that the duty be introduced either immediately (ie on December 22, 2000 when the WFD came into force) or at an early date, eg the date on which the WFD will become transposed into national law (by December 22, 2003). While there may ultimately be a legal aspect to this debate, the lack of an official view from DEFRA creates uncertainty for all stakeholders.

— One of the most promising initiatives from DEFRA on the WFD—the Stakeholder Sounding Board—has been allowed to die a quiet death after just three meetings. WWF-UK is keen to see this Board resurrected immediately as an open forum in which key national stakeholders can discuss with DEFRA issues surrounding transposition and implementation of the WFD.

2.6 One of the acid tests of successful WFD implementation will be whether or not adequate measures are put in place to reduce levels of diffuse water pollution from agriculture. Eutrophication of fresh and coastal waters, caused by increased nutrient levels, is widely acknowledged as the most serious threat to water quality in the UK and much of the EU. Evidence from field projects in Devon and Cornwall have shown that simple measures to reduce this threat on a catchment scale can lead not only to environmental gains, but to direct economic benefits for farmers[11]. WWF-UK believes that the Government could learn lessons from this approach and is working with the Association of Rivers Trusts to encourage similar projects in other parts of the country.

2.7 A larger scale example of a strategic and sustainable approach to maintenance and restoration of water quality is the New York City Watershed Agreement[12]. This landmark Agreement saw the city authorities in New York enter into a comprehensive arrangement with landowners and municipalities in the Catskill and Delaware catchments for changes in land use to safeguard the quality of the city's water supplies. The costs of the Agreement, approximately $1.5 billion over 10 years, are far less than the alternative—construction of water treatment facilities costing approximately $6-8 billion plus annual running costs. WWF-UK recommends that the Government encourage Ofwat, water companies and landowners to instigate pilot schemes of a similar nature in England and Wales.

2.8 Flooding is another other key issue for water management. The German federal government has indicated that its response to the recent floods along the Rhine will include a greater emphasis on catchment-scale wetland and floodplain restoration and protection. WWF-UK is one of a growing number of advocates for such a "soft" approach to managing flood waters in this country. Indeed, the 1998 Agriculture Select Committee report on flooding recommended that the Government implement similar measures. WWF-UK believes that this approach will contribute not only to better mitigation of flood impacts, but also to achieving the WFD targets.

2.9 Gordon Brown has recently announced significant additional funding for flood control in the coming years. WWF-UK calls on the Government to ensure that, wherever possible, this money is spent on sustainable floodplain restoration and maintenance rather than old-fashioned hard engineering "solutions" to floods. In particular, WWF-UK would like to see a pilot programme of payments to farmers who manage land in such a way as to help flood mitigation—for example through wetland restoration and/or washland creation.

2.10 WWF-UK is aware that the Committee wishes to investigate issues surrounding the costs and benefits of implementing the WFD. Clearly it is important that WFD implementation is cost-effective. It is also important that the costs of implementation are fairly distributed. However, the current debate about costs and who pays them—and in particular the focus in some quarters with the worst-case scenario set out in DEFRA's initial Regulatory Impact Assessment—considers only half the story. If implemented properly, the WFD will provide many benefits for people: better flood management, naturally cleaner drinking water, and increased revenue from tourism and recreation to name just three. WWF-UK believes that the Government can encourage a better balanced debate about the costs and benefits of WFD implementation by urgently producing a new RIA that a) is more robust and up to date than the existing study and b) takes better account of the value of environmental improvements to be gained from the WFD.

3. FIVE ELEMENTS FOR EFFECTIVE RIVER BASIN PLANNING

3.1 In 2001, WWF published Elements of Good Practice in Integrated River Basin Management: A Practical Resource for Implementing the EU Water Framework Directive. This Practical Resource document was the result of three seminars which brought together hundreds of European water managers and stakeholders to discuss tools and approaches for implementation of the WFD. The Practical Resource document was validated at a workshop involving more than 20 experts, representing all sectors of the water management community, held in August 2001.

3.2 The WFD sets out many tasks that competent authorities must complete during the river basin planning process, eg defining river basin districts, identifying key water management issues, assessing the most cost-effective set of measures for achieving objectives or developing monitoring programmes. One of the key lessons in the Practical Resource document is that five key cross-cutting issues need to be systematically considered for each of these task: integration, scale, timing, participation and capacity.

3.3 Integration between organisations, economic sectors and disciplines dealing with water management issues is required for ensuring efficient and cost-effective river basin planning. This is especially relevant for international river basins. Also, other EU legislation, policy and financial instruments are to be integrated with water policy to remove or minimise obstacles to sustainable water management.

3.4 At present water management in England and Wales is characterised by a plethora of organisations and an abundance of plans and strategies. Thus the Environment Agency and English Nature share responsibility for managing the water environment with Internal Drainage Boards, local authorities, water companies, port authorities and others. In any single catchment there may dozens of plans and strategies dealing with water management—Local Environment Agency Plans, Catchment Flood Management Plans, Catchment Abstraction Management Strategies, Water Level Management Plans, Estuarine Action Plans, Shoreline Management Plans, Coastal Habitat Management Plans, Biodiversity Action Plans and several development plans. The House of Commons Agriculture Committee called the institutional framework for flood management alone "byzantine" in its 1998 and 2001 reports on flooding.

3.5 With the best will in the world, and notwithstanding the fact that many of these plans have individual merits, the number of organisations and strategies makes delivery of integrated river basin management impossible. WWF-UK therefore recommends that the Government's priority should be to streamline and integrate the water management framework so that river basin management plans should become the single overarching framework for water management in the UK. All aspects of water and land management, especially flood control and agricultural support, should take full account of, and contribute to, these plans and to the achievement of good ecological and chemical status as required by the WFD.

3.6 The river basin is clearly recognised in the WFD as the basic planning scale for water management measures. The great diversity in river basin sizes means approaches suitable to one location are not automatically transferable elsewhere, although the same basic planning principles must apply. Coherence is required between the processes developed at different spatial scales, ie reconciling top down and bottom up approaches to ensure environmental objectives are effectively met.

3.7 WWF-UK believes that the current planning framework is not sufficiently based on the idea of river basin management. Many of the plans and strategies mentioned in paragraph 3.4 cover only part of a river basin. Moreover, the proposals in the Government's first consultation paper on implementing the WFD in England and Wales for designating six of the ten river basin districts under the WFD do not follow river basin boundaries. A more detailed explanation from the Government of the rationale behind this designation would be welcome.

3.8 WWF-UK believes that there is merit in the idea of appointing officers for each of the major river basins in England and Wales. The role of these officers would be to ensure that approaches for all aspects of water and land management were coherent across sectors and contributed to achieving the WFD targets. WWF-UK also recommends the establishment of river basin boards in England and Wales. These would be legally-recognised forums in which all major stakeholders were represented and which existed to make strategic decisions about water management in each river basin. Many, or perhaps most, of the functions of existing bodies—such as Regional Flood Defence Committees—could be absorbed into these river basin boards.

3.9 Timing of implementation is considered as crucial. Deadlines for achieving the objectives of the WFD are extremely challenging. But they must not be seen as a step-by-step timetable for implementation as many tasks will effectively be required before such deadlines.

3.10 WWF-UK welcomes the commitment from DEFRA to transpose the WFD on time. WWF-UK is also aware that the Environment Agency and others are already actively working on several aspects of implementation. There is a potential danger that, in the rush to meet the WFD deadlines, existing initiatives such as Catchment Abstraction Management Strategies are simply rebadged as elements of River Basin Management Plans. WWF-UK would not recommend that work on these initiatives is simply jettisoned, but DEFRA and the Agency must examine carefully the extent to which existing efforts will actually contribute to meeting the WFD targets.

3.11 Information, consultation and participation of the public and stakeholders are key elements of the process that will lead to successful river basin planning. Provision of transparent and accessible information, together with genuine opportunities for participation in planning and decision-making, should be prioritised from the start. Participation needs to be adapted to the appropriate scale, target groups and activities, and managed carefully to ensure expectations from all sides are clear and can be fulfilled.

3.12 Article 14 of the WFD requires Member States to ensure that the public are "actively involved" in all aspects of implementation. Legal advice obtained by WWF-Scotland suggests that simply publishing the odd consultation paper will not be enough to comply with this requirement. Moreover, the Aarhus Convention[13], to which the UK is a signatory, has clearly established the advantages to be gained from public participation in environmental decision-making. The EU-funded Wise Use of Floodplains[14] project has shown how participation can add value to the river basin planning process. WWF-UK strongly believes that the Government should learn from this project and put in place measures for better public participation in WFD implementation at national, river basin and local scales.

3.13 Capacity among all relevant sectors needs to be maximised. Capacity building, starting with awareness raising, is required for officials, planners and administrators, but also for economic sectors, local authorities and NGOs. Allocating adequate financial and human resources to capacity building and participation processes will be key to implementing the WFD. There are a wide range of issues here but WWF-UK is especially concerned that staff resources for WFD transposition and implementation within DEFRA are stretched thin and that the ongoing BRIGHT review within the Environment Agency may jeopardise the chances of successful implementation.

4. CONCLUSION

4.1 It is clear from this evidence that, there could be significant socio-economic and environmental gains from the more sustainable approach to water and land management that the WFD could deliver. While the WFD is a complex and ambitious piece of legislation that poses several challenges, there is a considerable body of technical water management expertise in the UK and, potentially, we are in a good position to achieve the WFD targets. To achieve these gains implementation efforts must follow the spirit, as well as the letter, of the WFD.

4.2 Despite some positive developments, the Government seems to be taking an approach to implementation that is geared more towards minimum compliance than maximum gain. The view from Whitehall seems to be that the WFD is more of a burden than an opportunity and that measures already in place in this country, rebadged as River Basin Management Plans so as to avoid infraction proceedings, will deliver the ambitious target of good ecological and chemical status for all waters by 2015. If this attitude prevails, WWF-UK believes that in December 2015 we will still be suffering the same problems of inadequate flood management, eutrophication of our rivers, lakes and coasts and declining wildlife.

4.3 A change in attitude can only come about through political leadership. Michael Meacher and Sue Essex wanted the UK to be leaders within Europe. WWF-UK would be delighted to see this happen and, through the Natural Rivers Programme, is committed to helping. But the process must be led by Government. WWF-UK awaits the Committee's report, and the Government's response, with interest.

2 Taken from the Joint Foreword, First Consultation Paper on the Implementation of the EC Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC), DETR/National Assembly for Wales. Back

3 WWF (2001) Elements of good practice in integrated river basin management: a practical resource for implementing the EU Water Framework Directive, WWF European Freshwater Programme, Brussels (available at www.panda.org/europe/freshwater/seminars/seminars.html) Back

4 WWF (2001) Water and Wetland Index: assessment of 16 European countries-Phase 1 results, WWF European Freshwater Programme, Copenhagen (available at www.panda.org/europe/freshwater/wwi/phase1/overview.html) Back

5 Carvalho, L. and Moss, B. 1995. The current status of a sample of English sites of special scientific interest subject to eutrophication. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, 5, 191-204 Back

6 RSPB. 2002. Wetlands in the Water Framework Directive: report to DEFRA's Stakeholder Sounding Board Back

7 Environment Agency. 1998. The State of the Environment of England and Wales: Fresh Waters, The Stationery Office, Norwich Back

8 Environment Agency. 2001. Water Resources for the Future: A Strategy for England and Wales Back

9 Environment Agency. 1998. River Habitat Quality Back

10 Environment Agency. 2002. First technical consultation paper on the Water Framework Directive Back

11 The Westcountry Rivers Trust advised more than 300 farmers in the Taw, Tamar and Torridge catchments on measures for better water, chemical and soil management on farms. Consequent changes in farm practices saw reduced fertiliser and pesticide use and average direct benefits per farm of £2,700 per annum. Note that average farm incomes in Devon and Cornwall are approximately £4,000 per year. See www.wrt.org.uk for more information. Back

12 For more on this and other approaches to integrated river basin management see WWF (2002) Managing Water Wisely: Promoting Sustainable Development Through Integrated River Basin Management, WWF Living Waters Programme/WWF-UK, Godalming (available at www.panda.org/livingwaters) Back

13 UNECE Convention on access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters, Aarhus, Denmark, 25 June 1998 Back