Memorandum submitted by The Wildlife Trusts
SUMMARY
The Wildlife Trusts view the Water Framework
Directive as the most significant environmental and sustainability
legislation to emerge from Europe in decades.
Freshwater and coastal habitats are immensely
valuable for wildlife and people. The restoration of ecosystem
function can, and should, play a central role in delivering the
Directives objectives.
The timetable for implementation is demanding
but in some cases action may be warranted before deadlines are
reached so that the most cost-effective programme of measures
can be introduced with time to act.
The public have a major part to play in the
implementation of the Directive through taking action on the ground
and participation in the development of River Basin Management
Plans.
The UK's Biodiversity Action Planning process
has identified a large number of freshwater and coastal species/habitats
for priority action. RBMPs should incorporate these targets within
the programme of measures.
The Protected Areas Register provides an opportunity
to integrate existing European and domestic environmental and
public health policies. There is a strong case that the register
should include SSSIs.
The mitigation of flood impacts is a key objective
of the Directive. The RBMP process provides an unparalleled opportunity
to plan flood management on a catchment scale through integration
of land use, planning development and agricultural policies. Wetland
creation and coastal re-alignment have a key role to play and
their multi-functional benefits should be recognised.
There are no reliable estimates for the overall
costs of implementation of the Directive. However long term sustainable
management of water resources cannot be considered an option for
today's society or those in the future.
Ultimately the success or failure in implementing
the Directive will rest on whether or not the Government, DEFRA
and all the other agencies involved in implementation, can move
their focus away from narrow functional interests and rise to
the challenge of integrating their polices to deliver the sustainable
water and wetland environment called for by the Directive.
INTRODUCTION
1. The Wildlife Trusts welcome the opportunity
to contribute to the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee
Inquiry into The Water Framework Directive (the "Directive").
2. The Wildlife Trusts are a unique partnership
of 47 local Wildlife Trusts covering the whole of the UK and the
Isle of Man. The partnership campaigns for the protection of wildlife
and invests in the future by helping people of all ages to gain
a greater appreciation and understanding of nature. Collectively
The Wildlife Trusts have approximately 382,000 members and manage
almost 2,500 nature reserves, covering more than 76,000 hectares
of land, ranging from inner city urban sites to the UK's finest
wildlife areas.
3. Collectively, The Wildlife Trusts manage
approximately 2,250 wetland habitats and 595 river reaches. Outside
of our reserves local trusts deliver advice to riparian landowners
and managers through the Water for Wildlife project, supported
at a UK level by the Water Policy Team.
BACKGROUND
4. The purpose of the Directive, as articulated
in Article 1 is:
". . . to establish a framework for the
protection of inland surface waters, transitional waters, coastal
waters and groundwater which:
(a) prevents further deterioration and protects
and enhances the status of aquatic ecosystems and, with regard
to their water needs, terrestrial ecosystems and wetlands directly
depending on the aquatic ecosystems;
(b) promotes sustainable water use based
on a long-term protection of available water resources;
(c) aims at enhanced protection and improvement
of the aquatic environment, inter alia, through specific measures
for the progressive reduction of discharges, emissions and losses
of priority substances and the cessation or phasing-out of discharges,
emissions and losses of the priority hazardous substances;
(d) ensures the progressive reduction of
pollution of groundwater and prevents its further pollution; and
(e) contributes to mitigating the effects
of floods and droughts"
and thereby contributes to:
— the provision of the sufficient supply
of good quality surface water and groundwater as needed for sustainable,
balanced and equitable water use;
— a significant reduction in pollution
of groundwater;
— the protection of territorial and
marine waters; and
— achieving the objectives of relevant
international agreements . . ."
5. Although the purpose of the Directive
is simple the interpretation of the remaining Articles and Annexes,
and the science used to underpin them, is complex and fraught
with difficulty. The Wildlife Trusts recognise that no one Government,
organisation or Department knows all the answers to implementation
or that indeed all the questions raised by the Directive can be
answered given our current state of knowledge.
THE VALUE
OF AQUATIC
ECOSYSTEMS & WETLANDS
TO WILDLIFE
AND PEOPLE
6. In the UK freshwater rivers and wetlands
are known to support over one third of Britain's higher plants,
some 660 species, (EN & EA 1999) and in excess of 3,500 invertebrate
species (Merritt 1994). Our rivers, lakes and waterways are also
home to some of the UK's best known mammals such as the otter
and water vole. As well as supporting a wealth of species diversity
wetlands are also highly productive with freshwater sites like
the Somerset Levels and Ouse Washes hosting 100,000 and 60,000
wintering birds respectively.
7. The importance of wetlands goes far beyond
their intrinsic value to biodiversity. A recent study by Costanza
et al (1997) estimated the value of the world's natural
fresh and coastal wetland ecosystem function at 14.9 trillion
dollars. While studies that attribute monetary value to natural
systems are open to significant uncertainty, the vast sum attributed
to wetlands reflects the wide array of services they provide eg
nutrient cycling, flood defence, water purification, cultural
value, groundwater recharge, food production etc.
8. It has been estimated that as much as
25% of Roman Britain used to be wetland (Rackham 1986) ranging
from the vast lowland fens of East Anglia to extensive upland
bogs of Scotland. Although the large-scale drainage of UK wetlands
dates back to Roman times, our recent history has seen a dramatic
increase in the efficiency and extent of human intervention.
9. In the UK 19,000 hectares of wet grassland
have been drained (RSPB et al 1997) while in low-lying
Eastern England as much as 7,000km have been lost (Williams 1990).
The widespread destruction of habitat has led to the decline of
bird species such as snipe (now confined to nature reserves in
England) and lapwing (48% decline in the 1990s).
10. Land drainage and flood defence have
also devastated the character of river corridors with less than
5% of lowland floodplains now supporting wetland habitats and
around 80% of river channels having been modified (EA et al,
1998). The disconnection of rivers from their floodplains has
reduced catchment storage, increased downstream flood risk and
limited opportunities for infiltration and groundwater recharge.
The modification of river habitats also constrains dynamic processes
that constantly revitalise and establish habitats eg the creation
of riffles, pools and meanders and the cyclical wetting of washlands
by flooding.
11. The UK is not unique; it has been estimated
that in many European countries, 50-60% of wetland habitats were
lost in the early-mid 20th century (Dugan 1990) through pressures
of land drainage, flood defence, abstraction and development.
This decline in European wetland biodiversity has been encouraged
by a fragmented institutional, economic and regulatory framework
that evolved in response to very different social imperatives
to those that operate today. In this fragmented system, the value
of the wetland environment has generally been overlooked or merely
seen as a constraint on development.
12. As we face the pressures of global climate
uncertainty and demographic change it is becoming clear that the
restoration of natural ecosystem functions is not only essential
for the protection of the environment but also for the benefit
society through mitigation of flooding and drought, greater amenity
value, cleaner and cheaper drinking water, thriving fisheries
and a better quality of life. The Wildlife Trusts believe that
the restoration of ecosystem function must play a central role
in the social and economic development of the UK and we see the
Water Framework Directive as a major opportunity to drive this
reform, and integrate, the way in which rivers, wetlands, lakes
and coastal ecosystems are managed for the benefit of wildlife
and people.
TIMETABLE OF
IMPLEMENTATION
13. The Directive provides Member States
with a series of deadlines to be met, leading to the achievement
of good water body status by 2015, after which a process of six
yearly reviews is set in motion. Although this final objective
is set some considerable time in the future the technical, legal
and practical challenge of meeting these deadlines should not
be underestimated.
14. The economic analysis required by the
Directive is explicitly designed to help the Government introduce
the most cost-effective policy, educational and regulatory package
in order to meet the ecological objectives. However if the Government
takes a typically over cautious approach to implementation[2]
there is a risk that the measures introduced will be driven by
the threat of infraction proceedings and therefore, a need to
be seen to take action rather than making the most considered
and cost effective choice.
15. Such an approach helps no one. It creates
regulatory uncertainty for industry and agriculture and militates
against long-term integrated catchment control measures, towards
more expedient but costly and less sustainable "end of pipe"
solutions. Therefore The Wildlife Trusts urge the Government to
act, before it is required to, under the terms of the Directive
where this is necessary to provide best value to the UK taxpayer.
MEANS OF
IMPLEMENTATION—PUBLIC
PARTICIPATION
16. As outlined in paragraph 7, freshwater,
coastal and wetland environments are of enormous value and importance
to people as well as wildlife. Equally decisions about our lifestyles
and the way land is used, impact directly on the health and sustainability
of these ecosystems. The Directive requires Member States to actively
engage interested parties in the implementation of the Directive
and in particular the production of River Basin Management Plans.
17. The Wildlife Trusts welcome this measure
and will seek to work with the Agencies to ensure that there is
active and meaningful engagement with local communities. This
will mean far more than consultation but rather active capacity
building to ensure all sectors of society are involved. This process
clearly has important links to the development of community strategies.
MEANS OF
IMPLEMENTATION—BIODIVERSITY
TARGETS
18. The UK biodiversity Action Plan was
written in 1995 as the Government's commitment to the Biodiversity
Convention, resulting from the Rio Earth Summit in 1992. It is
a targeted, structured approach to ensure priority habitats and
species receive appropriate action across the policy framework.
The process is underpinned by a partnership approach will, ideally,
involvement from individuals and organisations from all sectors
of society.
19. Article 1 of the Directive sets out
its purpose to include the protection of aquatic ecosystems and
wetlands[3]
as well as contributing to achieving the objectives of relevant
international agreements. Taken together these stated objectives
can clearly be interpreted to include the delivery of the wetland
elements of the UK's commitment to the Convention on Biological
Diversity.
20. The UK BAP has identified 148 priority
species and 14 priority habitats that relate to rivers and wetlands.
The Wildlife Trusts believe the Directive provides an unparalleled
opportunity to integrate biodiversity planning targets into the
wider river basin management planning process. This does not necessarily
mean creating more reserves or designating ever greater areas
of land for special protection but rather identifying opportunities
for biodiversity gain at a strategic and local level through the
integration of BAP targets throughout all elements of the RBMP
programme of measures.
MEANS OF
IMPLEMENTATION—PROTECTED
AREAS
21. The Directive requires Member States
to draw up a register of protected areas and sets a timescale
for the achievement of status objectives for these areas of no
more than 15 years after the passing of the Directive (the date
by which water bodies are to reach good status).
22. The Directive indicates a minimum requirement
of what the register contains which essentially lists existing
European environmental and water related protected areas eg SACs,
SPAs, bathing waters, nutrient sensitive areas etc. While this
could be approached as a purely administrative process of compiling
maps this is clearly not the intention of the Directive. By bringing
these designations under one planning tool (the RBMP) the Directive
provides an opportunity to ensure the cross-compliance of measures
that have traditionally been considered, and introduced, in a
piecemeal fashion.
23. The Wildlife Trusts also strongly believe
that Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) should be included
in the register of protected areas. SSSIs represent exemplary
places of nature conservation value and require specific management
actions with related monitoring and reporting procedures to ensure
their natural heritage value is maintained. Quite apart from any
legal argument[4]
the inclusion of SSSIs would underline commitment to delivery
of the Government's Public Service Agreement (PSA) target of 95%
of SSSIs in favourable status by 2010 and provide real impetuous
to achieving that target by:
— Identifying SSSI objectives as an
integral part of the wider RBMP.
— Integrating the measures required
to achieve favourable status in the wider programme of measures
introduced by the RBMP.
— Implementing a common, cost-effective,
approach to achieving nature conservation obligations set by European
and domestic legislation.
24. If SSSIs are not included in the register
there is a real danger that effort in monitoring, research and
management will be duplicated and that the opportunities for broad
catchment scale approaches to restoring and maintaining nature
conservation value will be missed.
MEANS OF
IMPLEMENTATION—REFORM
OF AGRICULTURE
POLICY
25. Over 70% of the UK's land is farmed[5].
Agriculture is likely to be the single biggest land management
sector (both in terms of area and management impact) to implement
the "no deterioration" and "restoration" objectives
of the Directive. The impact of farming on the Directive's objectives
extends beyond the more obvious links between diffuse pollution
and water quality. As stewards of the majority of our landscape
farmers play a major role in the management of our waters and
wetlands generally. For example, the manipulation of rivers and
drainage of land to allow agricultural intensification has had
a massive impact on the hydro-morphological characteristics of
the water bodies and hence their ecological status. At the same
time changing agricultural practice and poor soil management can
damage soil structure, increasing erosion and runoff rates bringing
flash floods and increased water treatment costs for public water
supply.
26. A purely regulatory approach to the
impact of agriculture will not be enough to mitigate its potential
negative impact on the water environment. If implementation of
the Directive is not actively integrated with agricultural policy
then the tax payer will pay twice, once through agricultural support
for activities that cause the damage and again for measures to
mitigate impacts further down the hydrological system or at the
end of the pipe.
27. The Government must take a far more
positive to integrating agricultural policy and financial instruments
in light of the requirements of the Directive. Cost-effective
implementation will require land use policy and incentive payments
to shift towards sustainable farming practice and away from production
subsidies.
MEANS OF
IMPLEMENTATION—FLOOD
DEFENCE POLICY
28. The mitigation of the impact of floods
is specifically identified as a key objective for member states
in opening Article 1 of the Directive. The Wildlife Trusts see
this as a great opportunity to build on the work of the Catchment
Flood Management process currently being tested in England so
as to fully integrate flood management policy with planning and
land use policies on a catchment and river basin scale.
29. The Wildlife Trusts believe that the
restoration of river morphology, upland wetlands and floodplain
connectivity should all play a much greater role in reducing the
rate at which rainfall is translated into run-off and hence flooding.
Such an approach would have massive benefits for biodiversity
and, in certain areas, increase aquifer recharge and improve water
quality. It is for this reason that we are disappointed that the
text of the Environment Agency consultation on the technical implementation
of the directive omits the reference to the role wetlands play
in mitigating floods found in the text of an otherwise almost
identical SEPA document[6]
published a month earlier.
30. The River Basin Management Plans should
also play a key role in integrating coastal and fluvial flood
defence strategies and wider land use policies to address the
problems of coastal squeeze through defence re-alignment and the
restoration of inland wetlands to compensate for the loss of freshwater
habitats that are currently defended from tidal inundation.
31. The quantity and quality of urban run-off
can have a major impact on the ecology of rivers and streams.
River Basin Management Plans will also be a useful tool to drive
land drainage policies in the built environment towards the use
of Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS). Despite widespread acceptance
that the use of SuDS can bring about significant reduction in
run-off and improved water quality while providing amenity and
biodiversity value, their adoption in England and Wales has been
slow.
COSTS OF
IMPLEMENTATION
32. The Wildlife Trust are disappointed
that the committee appears to have chosen to isolate discussion
of costs of the Directive from the benefits. Missing the opportunity
to secure the sustainable management of our water resources is
not an option for society today or in the future. Neither is ignoring
the multitude of functions ecosystems play in creating wealth,
improving quality of life and regulating the physical processes
of the water cycle.
33. The complexity and range of issues associated
with the implementation of the WFD makes estimating the costs
and benefits subject to great uncertainty. DEFRA's first consultation
on the Directive included a Regulatory Impact Assessment quoting
the cost of implementation ranging from between £2.0 and
£9.2 billion based on a study carried out by WRc.
34. However an independent assessment of
the work carried out by Professor Nick Hanley of Glasgow University
found serious flaws in the information and methodology used. In
particular Professor Hanley found the WRc work:
— Was based on an old (1997) draft
of the Directive.
— May have over-estimated the costs,
such as river restoration costs.
— Over-estimates the costs of pollution
controls, by double counting some water treatment needs and ignoring
the role economic instruments can play.
— Under-estimated the value of existing
measures in helping to achieve compliance, such as Environmentally
Sensitive Area schemes.
— Under-estimates the benefits of cross-compliance,
for example with biodiversity targets.
— Under-estimates or fails to quantify
wider public benefits (such as enhanced health and more opportunities
for recreation) from improved water quality.
— Does not incorporate new information
about controls on hazardous substances.
35. Professor Hanley's work concluded that
the benefits of implementing the Directive may range between 40%
less and 70% more than the costs depending on assumptions made
in the analysis. This points to the fact that the RIA figures
are unreliable and should not be used as a basis for policy formulation.
MEETING THE
COSTS—WATER
PRICING POLICY
36. The Directive enshrines three key elements
of water pricing policy (Article 9) , namely:
— Recovery of costs for abstraction
of water and discharge of effluent, including environmental and
resource costs.
— Pricing that provide adequate incentives
to promote efficient use of water resources.
— The disaggregation of costs between
domestic, industrial and agricultural users in accordance with
the polluter pays principle.
37. This contrasts the current situation
in England and Wales where, for example, abstraction charges are
strictly restricted to the recovery of administrative costs only.
These costs are generally marginal to the end product and do not
provide an economic incentive to reduce consumption (see below).
| Use | Raw Water Charge (£/m3)*
| Final Water Cost (£/m3) | Contribution (per cent)
|
| Public Water Supply | 0.00649
| 0.77 | 0.85 |
| Direct Summer Irrigation | 0.01730
| 0.45** | |
| 3.80 | |
|
| Winter Storage for irrigation | 0.00173
| 0.63# | 0.27 |
*Source: Environment Agency Midlands Region 2001-02 charging
scheme.
Source: Severn Trent Water domestic customer metered
charge, also subject to standing charge.
** Source: Irrigation in England & Wales—the
key issues Knox et al (2000).
# Economic Instruments in Relation to Water Abstraction, DETR
(2000).
38. As part of the draft Water Bill the Government commissioned
research into the impact of changing water pricing policy on water
use patterns and consulted on the outcome[7].
The work was commissioned prior to the passing of the Directive
and concluded that, for most industries, abstraction patterns
were likely to be inelastic to price change, particularly where
infrastructure costs are high and charges can be readily passed
on to customers eg public water supply.
39. However, The Wildlife Trusts strongly support the
recovery of environment and resource costs in principle and see
the money raised as a valuable source of funding for biodiversity
enhancement and wise use awareness schemes. This would go some
way in fulfilling the Directives obligations providing at least
some incentive for wise use and promoting the polluter pays principle
by increasing the charge for those who consume the most water.
The aggregates and landfill tax credit schemes could provide a
useful model for such an approach with the largest abstractors
being able to manage the monies raised.
THE ROLE
OF THE
ENVIRONMENT AGENCY
40. The Wildlife Trusts support the identification of
the Environment Agency (the Agency) as the Competent Authority
responsible for implementing the Directive. However it is important
to note that the there are significant gaps in the Agency's skill
base and regulatory powers that will need addressing if the objectives
of the Directive are to be met on time and in a cost effective
manner. For example the Agency has very limited powers to control
diffuse pollution from agricultural or urban areas.
41. While the Agency may point to Catchment Abstraction
Management Strategies (CAMS) and Catchment Flood Management Plans
(CFMPs) as models to build on in the RBMP process it should be
made clear that these only go a small way towards delivering the
Directives requirements. For example the applicability of CAMS
is strictly limited to flow in river channels and does not deal
with wetland needs and neither CFMPs and CAMS integrate biodiversity
targets. In addition they do not link or match spatially or temporally
requiring functionally isolated groups within the Agency to gather
the similar information and engage the same stakeholders separately.
42. One approach to implementation of the Directive would
be to relax of the restrictions on internal funding streams to
promote an objective led (as opposed to function led) approach
to delivery. This would allow the Agency to respond to objectives
set through the RBMP process by developing the most cost effective
programme of measures at a local level. Many of which will deliver
multiple benefits across the Agency's broad spectrum of responsibilities
eg wetland restoration for flood defence could benefit biodiversity,
recreation and water resource management.
DEFINITIONS
43. The Directive is littered with ambiguous wording
and ill-defined phrases. However many of the difficulties raised
are being addressed through the Common Implementation Strategy[8]
that will ultimately produce guidance to Member States on how
the Directive should be applied. Of course where agreement in
the CIS groups cannot be found, or ambiguity remains it will be
up to the Commission to pass judgement on whether member States
are in compliance.
44. The Wildlife Trusts believe that the only way to
interpret the text is to relate it back to the purpose and objectives
of the Directive. In this way the term "significant human
activity" would be defined as one that alone, or in combination
with others, could:
— cause a water body to fail to meet its status
objective;
— cause the deterioration of water body status;
— prevent a protected area from reaching its management
objectives; and
— pollute groundwater etc . . .
45. From the definition of River Basin given in Article
2.12 it is clear that Directive is referring to river catchments.
However the unit for RBMP management, the River basin district,
can be a combination of river basins, aquifers and coastal water
hence the large scale units suggested by DEFRA in its first consultation.
TANGIBLE BENEFITS
AND COST-EFFECTIVE
IMPLEMENTATION
46. The Wildlife Trusts are concerned that by restricting
discussion to tangible benefits there is a danger that those intangible
benefits that a clean environment and vibrant landscape can bring
may be missed. Not all benefits are easily costed but that does
not make them any less real. With this in mind The Wildlife Trust
believe that the broad range of benefits the Directive will bring
include:
— A reduction in the costs of water treatment due
to diffuse pollution.
— Greater security of water resources for wildlife
and people in the face of growing climate uncertainty.
— More effective flood management using a whole
suite of tools that include wetland restoration, land management,
sustainable urban drainage and coastal re-alignment as well as
hard engineering.
— More robust ecosystems that flourish as part of
the positive management of a catchments water resource and not
just fragments remain preserved in isolation from wider catchment
issues.
— An integrated approach to implementation of water
and environmental legislation, reducing regulatory overlap and
burden on landowners and industry.
— Greater opportunity for amenity and recreation
as water quality improves and wildlife flourishes.
— Opportunities to engender social inclusion through
community participation on the ground and in the development of
plans.
47. Ultimately the success or failure in implementing
the Directive will rest on whether or not the Government, DEFRA
and all the other agencies involved in implementation, can move
their focus away from narrow functional interests and rise to
the challenge of integrating their polices to deliver the sustainable
water and wetland environment called for by the Directive.
The Wildlife Trusts Water Policy Team
20 September 2002
1 Rivers with floodplains at less than 50 metres above ordnance
datum (EA, 1998)
2 The Agriculture Select Committee Report into Flood and Coastal
Defence (1998) concluded that ". . . the most immediate source
of increased risk from flood and erosion arose, not from environmental
or climate change, but from a heritage of hard engineered defence
structures . . ."
2
The widespread belief that the UK is guilty of "gold plating"
European regulations to the detriment of our industrial or agricultural
competitiveness does not appear to be borne out by the facts.
Infraction proceedings have been threatened over a number of Directives
including those controlling Groundwater Pollution and Nitrates. Back
3
Article 1a WFD (2000). Back
4
The legal case for inclusion of SSSIs in the register of protected
areas is eloquently made in legal opinion received by the RSPB.
Contact Kirsty Lewin Head of Water Policy, RSPB, The Lodge, Sandy,
Bedfordshire, SG19 2 DL tel 01767 680551. Back
5
Source: Environment in your pocket DEFRA (2001). Back
6
SEPA and the Environment Agency have both consulted on the technical
aspects of Annex II and V of the Directive. The Documents have
a common core text. Back
7
Economic Instruments in Relation to Water Abstraction, DETR (2000). Back
8
The CIS comprises a number of expert groups lead by member States.
The groups are comprise experts from Member States and other stakeholders
in the process. Back
| 
