Defining the ecological status of waters
in England and Wales
49. The evidence submitted to the Committee prompted
concern about the obvious imbalance between the amount of information
available about the quality of rivers compared with that available
for lakes, estuaries and coastal waters. Information made publicly
available by the Environment Agency[79]
is illustrative of the point: there is little reference to research
about lakes, and there are scant details of the quality of estuaries
and coastal waters, whereas there is much more data about rivers.
Undertaking nationwide monitoring of the chemistry and ecology
of waters to redress the balance will, of course, have significant
resource implications.
Lakes
50. There are some 55,000 lakes of more than a hectare
in area in England and Wales. The Water Framework Directive requires
only that lakes of at least 50 hectares should automatically be
considered water bodies,[80]
although the Environment Agency has asked for the views of stakeholders
about whether or not to include smaller lakes.[81]
English Nature argued that smaller lakes should be included in
the definition adopted, since the lower limit of 50 hectares would
exclude most of the lakes in England and Wales. Indeed they told
us that all lakes larger than 5 hectares in area should be included
in the definition, with further attention given to even smaller
lakes.[82]
51. The adoption of the approach advocated by English
Nature would have significant cost implications. But we believe
that our approach to the Directive should reflect the reality
of England and Wales, where lakes tend to be smaller than envisaged
in the Directive. The design of a sampling and classification
programme to meet our obligations under the Directive should adequately
address that situation. Up to 5000 river reaches across England
and Wales, representing 40,000 km of river,[83]
are regularly assessed, but the state of lakes and ponds is barely
examined. The Environment Agency concedes that existing monitoring
programmes "are not designed to meet the needs of the Water
Framework Directive".[84]
We note that it is taking steps to address the deficiency, and
we urge the Environment Agency and others to be more aware
of the status of lakes and ponds.
Coastal waters
52. We were told by the Centre for Environment, Fisheries
and Aquaculture (CEFAS) that "the Water Framework Directive
will have far-reaching and radical implications for the way in
which monitoring is carried out in United Kingdom coastal waters".
As is the case with lakes, CEFAS said that "it is already
clear that the parameters we must monitor to comply with the Directive
are not a close match to those that we are presently monitoring".[85]
In short, it appears that we do not yet know the scale of the
problems faced in our coastal waters. Moreover, Defra and CEFAS
take a different perspective about the seaward limit of the Directive.
Defra argues that "if good surface water chemical status
and good ecological status is achieved up to one nautical mile
out from the baseline (a requirement of the Water Framework Directive),
then the likelihood is that it will be achievable for a further
two nautical miles without further pollution control action on
land or in the coastal area".[86]
CEFAS, however, told us that "it is quite probable that some
currently-permitted activities might be more constrained by the
Water Framework Directive. There could be a substantial difference
between the implications of a 1 mile baseline and a 3 mile baseline,
in view of the many activities that take place between these contours".[87]
In short, there is again clearly little agreement about the
scale of the problem faced and about the implications of implementing
the Directive, and this must be resolved as soon as possible.
Conclusions about the science
53. The evidence we received, and the debate conducted
amongst the wider scientific community, makes clear that there
is as yet little agreement on the scale of the task faced in honouring
our obligations under the Water Framework Directive. All we can
say with certainty is based on the status of one group of organisms
(macroinvertebrates) in one category of waters (rivers). That
suggests that the oxygen status of our rivers has improved in
recent decades, as a result of a concerted effort to control organic
pollution, and this has had obvious benefits for certain animals
in our rivers, notably the salmon.
54. Set against that positive indicator is a body
of less promising evidence. Some of our witnesses pointed to the
modification of physical habitats in rivers on a massive scale,
leading to concomitant declines in the distribution of a range
of birds, mammals and fish. Others cited evidence of a substantial
nutrient pollution problem, largely from diffuse sources. It was
made clear to us that diffuse pollution is particularly difficult
to control. Moreover, it is evident that very little data has
yet been recorded about the state of lakes, estuaries and coastal
waters. We are extremely doubtful that it would be possible now,
given these gaps in the evidence, to build a national picture
of the current ecological status of these waters.
55. The Environment Agency has been charged with
the task of setting reference conditions for a wide range of water
bodies for which we have no previous monitoring data, and all
of which seem to be polluted to some extent. It is going to be
a significant challenge for the Agency to set evidence-based reference
conditions for high ecological status. There are, of course, methods
using models which might be used to indicate what chemical conditions
existed in a water body in the past. In addition, some countries
in Continental Europe may be able to refer to long-term records
of ecological indicators for a number of their major water bodies,
or they may be able to draw on data from wholly unpolluted waters
in establishing a definition of reference conditions. It seems
that we may be obliged to draw upon such models and on analogies
with other countries in setting reference conditions for our waters.
However, we are not aware of work being undertaken which might
be able to establish the chemical or physical habitat conditions
required to support native plants and animals in waters of 'high'
or 'good' ecological status.
56. At the beginning of this section of our Report
we suggested that a first step towards implementation of the Water
Framework Directive was to derive an understanding of the scale
of the task faced. We set out seven questions which needed to
be answered before that assessment could be made. The evidence
we have received makes clear that it is not currently possible
to answer the questions posed, and thus that the scale of the
task involved in achieving good ecological status in our waters
is not yet known.
57. Therefore, as a matter of urgency, we recommend
that a scientific Steering Group be set up to advise Defra and
the Environment Agency on the science surrounding the Water Framework
Directive. The Steering Group should comprise leading experts
in freshwater, estuarine and marine ecology. The Group should
be charged with the task of
· reviewing
the evidence which already exists regarding the physical, chemical
and biological status of waters across England and Wales;
· assessing
the extent to which our waters in their present state could be
classed as of 'high' or 'good' ecological status;
· identifying
gaps in the evidence needed to make that assessment; and
· commissioning
research on behalf of Defra and the Environment Agency to fill
such gaps in knowledge.
Administration and the Directive
The role of Defra and the Environment
Agency
58. As we have said, Defra is the Government department
responsible for the implementation of all European environmental
Directives. There are currently a number of major new Directives
being implemented in addition to the Water Framework Directive.
Thus the workload for Defra is substantial, and some of our witnesses
suggested that the Department is already struggling to meet its
commitments.[88] Several
witnesses, including Severn Trent Water Limited,[89]
Water UK,[90] South West
Water Limited,[91] and
the United Kingdom Environmental Law Association,[92]
commented that preparations for the implementation of the Directive
have been slow, and that inadequate resources have been committed
to it. South West Water Limited concluded that "initially,
a lack of priority and insufficient resources were directed to
the Water Framework Directive by both the [Environment] Agency
and Defra which has led to timetable slippage".[93]
59. Defra intends to appoint the Environment Agency
as the sole competent authority under the Directive. The views
of our witnesses about the appropriateness of that decision are
somewhat mixed. The RSPB, for example, set out a range of possible
alternative administrative arrangements,[94]
and said that (a) the Government had done little analysis of the
strengths and weaknesses of its preferred option, and (b) there
were preferable choices. Moreover, the Countryside Council for
Wales explained that the Water Framework Directive makes specific
arrangements in respect of protected areas established for water
dependent habitats and species (Natura 2000[95]),
and argued that it should be given competent authority status
"to ensure the successful achievement of the Water Framework
Directive's intentions towards Natura 2000 sites".[96]
English Nature told us that it expected to become a competent
authority in respect of conservation plans prepared in relation
to river basin management plans.[97]
Various other concerns about the 'competent authority' status
of the Environment Agency were also raised, and these are discussed
below.
Defra and the Environment Agency
60. Whilst the designation of the Agency as competent
authority will help to clarify the respective roles of Defra and
the Agency later in the process of implementing the Directive,
at present there is evidently some confusion about the current
responsibilities of each. South West Water Limited said that "for
a Directive as important as the Water Framework Directive, a strong,
professional and respected lead is essential ... A ministerial
champion should be responsible for this significant Directive.
Currently, the roles and responsibilities of Defra and the Environment
Agency are poorly defined".[98]
The situation is not helped by the fact that no formal announcement
has yet been made that the Environment Agency will be the
competent authority.[99]
We recommend that Defra clarify what its role is and will be
in respect of the Water Framework Directive, and exactly what
role will be taken by the Environment Agency if it is decided
that it is to be the competent authority under the Directive.
We further recommend that a 'ministerial champion' be designated
in relation to the Water Framework Directive, able to bring together
representatives from all Government Departments and other organisations
involved in the implementation of the Directive.
Clarifying what the Directive requires
61. As well as clarifying its role, and the role
of the Environment Agency, the Government must take steps to explain
to stakeholders exactly what is required of them. It was clear
from the evidence of several of our witnesses that they were in
many cases unclear about what is required of them. The documents
which have begun to emerge from the CIS working parties should
help to clarify matters.[100]
Nevertheless, underlying our recommendations is a plea that
the Government should engage those directly affected by the Directive
in dialogue to explain what steps they are or will be required
to take.
Resources
62. Whichever organisation is appointed competent
authority will require adequate resources. The Chartered Institute
of Water and Environmental Management (CIWEM) cast doubt on the
situation in the Environment Agency, saying that the Agency
seems to have had a slow start, with only three staff
dedicated to the Water Framework Directive ... CIWEM is concerned
whether the Agency will be adequately resourced by central government
funds for the early identification of basins and districts or
whether the requirements will result in an increase in charges
to abstractors, dischargers etc. is in fact properly resourced.[101]
The Environmental Industries Commission also pointed
to the need for proper resources.[102]
63. The Environment Agency itself says that its appointment
as competent authority "would fit well with the Agency's
current duties and powers as an environmental regulator, but in
order to perform this role effectively additional resources would
be needed".[103]
In supplementary evidence it set out details of what it required:
additional funds rising to more than £6 million by 2006-07,
and an increase in staffing by more than 100 over the same period.[104]
The Agency had bid for such new resources, but it conceded that
"current indications from Defra are that this bid will not
be met",[105]
with the result that it would be obliged to curtail monitoring
work or 'depart from the published timetable' in respect of other
work. Any failure adequately to resource the Environment Agency
to perform its responsibilities under the Water Framework Directive
would be wholly unacceptable. Having signed up to the Directive
the Government is obliged to provide the resources to ensure that
the Directive can be implemented, and implemented well.
79 See http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk. Back
80
See Annex II, para.1.2.2
of the Directive. Back
81
Environment Agency (2002)
The Water Framework Directive: Guiding principles on the technical
requirements, Environment Agency, Bristol, pp.9 and 10; see
www.environment-agency.gov.uk. Back
82
Ev 188. Back
83
Ev 73, para.1. Back
84
Ev 73, para.3. Back
85
Ev 203. Back
86
Defra (2002) Second
Consultation Paper on the Implementation of the EC Water Framework
Directive (2000/60/EC), Defra Publications, London; para.6.6,
p.23. Back
87
Ev 203. Back
88
Ev 175. Back
89
Q 269. Back
90
Q 322. Back
91
Ev 198, para.1.4. Back
92
Ev 192, para.1. Back
93
Ev 198, para.1.4. Back
94
Ev 243, Section 2. Back
95
Conservation sites set
up under the Habitat and Birds Directives; see http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/nature. Back
96
Ev 187, para.28 ff. Back
97
Ev 188. Back
98
Ev 198, para.1.2. Back
99
Ev 94. Back
100
See 'Environment: Commission
publishes implementing guidelines for Water Directive', in European
Report, 19 February 2003 (2752), p.IV-8; see also http://forum.europa.eu.int/Public/irc/env/wfd/library. Back
101
Ev 221, para.5.2. Back
102
Ev 225, para.5.1. Back
103
Ev 56, para.26. Back
104
Ev 73, para.3. Back
105
Ev 74, para.4. Back
| 
