Supplementary memorandum submitted by
the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB)
BIODIVERSITY AND THE WATER FRAMEWORK DIRECTIVE
1. INTRODUCTION
The RSPB gave evidence to the Environment, Food
and Rural Affairs Select Committee's Enquiry on the Water Framework
Directive on 30 October 2002. This paper is intended to provide
further detail on the links between Water Framework Directive
objectives and existing UK obligations towards the water and wetland
environment. It considers the concept of "good ecological
status", and asks how the Directive might help us to keep
the promises government has already made to protect and restore
wetland wildlife, with less expense and bureaucracy than we currently
experience.
2. WHY DO
WE NEED
NEW STANDARDS
OF "GOOD
ECOLOGICAL STATUS"?
England and Wales are rightly proud of their
record of river water quality improvement in the last twenty years.
This has largely been the result of a partnership between government,
the Environment Agency and business, investing millions of pounds
in modernising industrial processes and water treatment systems.
People have paid through their bills for improvements, which have
helped bring back species such as salmon and otters to areas where
they have not been seen for many years.
However, whilst a considerable amount has been
achieved in tackling gross organic pollution and controlling some
hazardous substances, our aquatic and wetland ecosystems still
face major challenges. For example:
— 55% of rivers in England and Wales
have high phosphate levels. While the Environment Agency measures
phosphorous, these measurements do not contribute to its assessment
methods for chemical or biological water quality;
— 46% of lake Sites of Special Scientific
Interest (SSSIs) are suffering from nutrient enrichment. There
is currently no overall monitoring or assessment system for lakes
in England and Wales. Such an assessment will be required under
the Water Framework Directive;
— 85% of lowland rivers in England
have been physically modified, with profound impacts on insect
and fish populations. These rivers are frequently disconnected
from their floodplains, resulting in loss and damage to wildlife-rich
wetlands.
Despite huge efforts to tackle nutrient pollution
of our waters from point sources, we still have rising levels
of phosphorous in many freshwater systems. This continued deterioration
of the quality of our freshwaters threatens the existence of many
plant species, and of the animals that depend upon them. Work
undertaken by Plantlife, the Wild Plant Conservation Charity,
has shown that plant species that depend on nutrient-poor water
have suffered, and continue to suffer, substantial long-term declines[10].
These include internationally important communities of stoneworts,
unique freshwater algae that are often called the "canaries
of the plant world", because of their sensitivity to pollution.
Closer to home for the RSPB, these same pollution problems pose
a serious threat to the recovery of the reedbed habitats of species
like the bittern, which depends on clear water and small fish.
3. WHAT STANDARDS
SHOULD WE
SET FOR
"GOOD ECOLOGICAL
STATUS"?
The problems described above must be tackled
urgently, and the Directive will help us to do this. But the question
remains, how are we going to set a standard for "good ecological
status" which allows us to realise environmental benefits,
but which is not an impossible aspiration, or a vision for the
water environment which excludes people, and attempts to turn
the clock back to a pre-industrial or pre-agrarian world?
The Directive"s "good status"
requirements do not require us to restore waters to a pristine
state. We may wish, in places, to restore elements of wetland
habitat to a pre-industrial condition, but we must recognise that
there are limits to how much restoration can be done, and where.
However, "good status" is also not
compatible with either long-term deterioration in the water environment,
or the chronic impacts of pressures such as eutrophication or
low flows. If it were, it would seriously undermine attempts to
address these major challenges to the water environment.
The RSPB has begun some research to examine
what "good ecological status" might look like for different
water environments, and to propose some "test sites"
for these standards. During the course of this work, which we
hope to complete in Spring 2003, we have begun to get a clearer
sense of how we might achieve robust standards in ways which can
benefit wildlife and people.
Example—Acidification
Acidification occurred in sensitive waterways
in the uplands, when sulphur and nitrogen emissions to the air
resulted in "acid rain". The impacts on aquatic ecosystems
were severe—fish, invertebrates and birds such as the dipper
suffered serious declines. To its credit, government worked hard
to tackle the source of this problem—the emissions themselves.
As a result, the pH in many of these streams has now risen again
to levels where one might expect to see the return of characteristic
freshwater wildlife. However, in many cases this does not seem
to be happening. The acid-sensitive insects and fish are not coming
back. One reason for this appears to be that the "buffering
capacity" of the surrounding land has been badly reduced,
so that "acid pulses" of rain passing through it can
still damage the receiving ecosystems. It may take 150 years to
put this problem right.
So how are we to tackle this? Should we set
standards for good ecological status in such streams that may
be impossible to achieve for several lifetimes, or which we can
only reach with expensive liming programmes, with the attendant
environmental risk to other sensitive ecosystems?
In fact, the dilemma is not so daunting as it
at first seems. We can set a standard for "good status"
which includes the presence of acid-sensitive species and communities,
and will help drive recovery from acidification, while acknowledging
that it may take time and innovation to bring about the biological
improvements required. We also believe it will be possible to
achieve this recovery without using "technical fixes".
There are ways to re-introduce resilience to these upland stream
ecosystems now. By planting areas of broad-leaf woodland, encouraging
more sustainable upland forestry practices and reducing soil erosion,
much might be done to allow these habitats to handle the impacts
of acidification more easily and recover some of their former
diversity. These are "catchment life-style changes"
rather than major surgery—cheaper, more effective in the
long-run, and linked to a range of other public policy initiatives
with benefits for people as well as wildlife, such as support
for rural tourism, and incentives for land managers to recreate
wildlife habitats.
In this way, "good status", rather
than becoming a financial burden on a particular sector, should
drive sustainable change, and in the long term allow us to discover
cheaper, cleaner and more effective ways of protecting and enhancing
aquatic ecosystems.
4. HOW DOES
THIS RELATE
TO OUR
SSSI AND UK BIODIVERSITY
ACTION PLAN
OBLIGATIONS?
If we can agree challenging yet realistic standards
for "good status", we can then consider how these (and
the Directive generally) can help us to deliver our other existing
obligations to vulnerable wildlife sites and species. In particular,
these include our obligations to aquatic and wetland SSSIs, and
towards priority species and habitats under the UK Biodiversity
Action Plan.
"Good status" is not equivalent to,
nor can it deliver of itself, the recovery and management of all
wetland wildlife. There will always be sensitive high-quality
wildlife sites where protective standards need to be set which
are more stringent than those imposed within the wider countryside.
Moreover, many wetland sites have been traditionally managed as
farmland, and are dependent on sympathetic farming practices to
maintain their characteristic landscapes and species.
However, while the Water Framework Directive
is not a "bible for biodiversity", achieving "good
ecological status" should create the back-drop against which
other management activities take place. Perhaps most importantly,
the planning tools provided by the Directive (designed to achieve
integrated water management) are exactly what we have been searching
for to deliver our existing national obligations.
The Water Framework Directive makes provisions
for "Protected Areas" (Articles 4 and 6), precisely
because it recognises the intimate link between European environmental
standards for water and the needs of threatened water dependent
species and habitats. It therefore seems extraordinary not to
use the mechanism of the Directive to deliver our obligations
to sites and species designated both at a community and at a national
level, as Defra has implied in the past. This is the opposite
of "gold plating". No additional environmental obligations
are proposed. Instead, we suggest that the Government uses the
Water Framework Directive to do a number of different jobs that
are already "on the books".
5. INTEGRATED
PLANNING FOR
WETLAND WILDLIFE
Integrated planning for wetland wildlife involves
working out how much water, of what quality, when and where, we
need to deliver environmental standards. These questions must
be answered in the context of human demands on the same water
resources—because this same water provides our drinking
and irrigation supplies, and in some cases can threaten our lives
or livelihoods through flooding.
Figure 1 illustrates how we might use Water
Framework Directive mechanisms to design programmes of measures
to deliver our existing obligations to the water environment,
in an integrated and transparent way. It shows how the water needs
dictated by European obligations, by obligations to SSSIs and
to BAP habitats and species might be brought together to create
a catchment "map" or vision of how much water we need,
where and when. This map would then be subject to the kind of
assessments that the Water Framework Directive, uniquely, introduces
to the water planning process. This would require rigorous and
transparent risk-assessment, appropriate allocation of costs,
and comparison of the costs and benefits (including environmental)
of different scenarios. This should facilitate the development
of an integrated programme of measures, to deliver as much of
the "vision" as is required by law or existing Government
obligations, is economically feasible and meets public expectations.
Figure 2 shows the alternative - the very real
danger of creating parallel, potentially conflicting systems to
manage these same environmental obligations, simply because some
require reporting to Brussels, and others to Westminster, Cardiff,
Edinburgh or Belfast. When we remember that this is the same water,
in each case, such a prospect seems absurd indeed.
FIGURE 1: INTEGRATED PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
OBJECTIVES
FIGURE 2: PARALLEL PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
OBJECTIVES
1. WHAT IMPACTS
DOES AGRICULTURE
HAVE ON
WATER?
Farmers are the natural stewards of the water
environment. Many wetland landscapes are maintained by farmers,
and rely on farming practice for the maintenance of their typical
biodiversity (for example grazing marshes and water meadows).
Wider water quality is also under farmers' stewardship, as most
catchments are at least partly farmed, and much of the water flowing
in Europe's rivers has passed through farmland. However, modern
farming has serious environmental costs for water. The total costs
of agriculture to the water environment are estimated to by the
Environment Agency to be a minimum of £203 million each year[11].
Agriculture makes a significant contribution
to water pollution, including phosphorous, nitrogen, soil, pesticides,
organic wastes and faecal pathogens.
— 43% of phosphorous entering UK waters
comes from agriculture. The cost from agriculture is estimated
to be £19 million per year.
— 70% of nitrogen entering inland freshwaters
in the EU is from agriculture. The costs from agriculture are
estimated to be £20 million per year.
— 89% of pesticides are contributed
by agriculture. Ofwat estimates the annual pesticide clear-up
bill to be £122 million, £108 million of which is clearing
agricultural pesticides.
— 12% of the total European land area
is affected by water erosion. In the UK, 44% of soils are vulnerable
to erosion. Soil erosion is the major source of silt pollution
in UK rivers and contributes significantly to phosphorous loads.
— Estimated agricultural contribution
to faecal pathogen loads in bathing waters is 5%. The cost of
clean-up from agriculture is estimated at £20 million annually.
Land management practices can contribute significantly
to flooding risks.
— Wetland drainage, poor soil structure,
increased stream and river sedimentation all contribute to the
problem.
— The Environment Agency estimates
that agriculture contributes to at least 14% of flooding events,
at a cost of £115 million per year.
Low Flows and water shortages
— 400 rivers in England and Wales suffer
from low flows.
— The annual cost is £4.5 million
(not including costs to wetlands).
— This problem will become more acute
as climate change accelerates.
2. WHAT CHANGES
WILL THE
DIRECTIVE REQUIRE
IN FARMING?
The Water Framework Directive will set ecological
and chemical standards for water which will require changes to
farming practices, in order to reduce the costs of farming to
the environment. The higher standards required by the Directive
should act as a positive driver for agricultural reform. This
reform is urgently needed, as much to secure a long-term future
for the industry as to protect precious natural resources.
Improvements in water quality will be required
to meet Water Framework Directive standards. These will be achieved
through a combination of:
— Better soil and nutrient management;
— Changes in farm practice in some
areas, including reductions in stocking densities, changes in
cropping patterns or land use;
— Reduced use and better management
of pesticides.
The required changes may result in increased
tension between the demand to use fertile flood-plain land for
intensive arable cropping, and the need to improve river system
buffering and hydro-morphology. Managing (and minimising) such
tensions will be an important challenge of Water Framework Directive
implementation.
Irrigation may be affected where there are environmental
limits of abstraction from ground or surface waters.
— Agriculture is currently only a small
contributor to water scarcity, but may increase.
— Modern water conservation and irrigation
techniques can hugely reduce agricultural impact on water resources.
— More careful planning is needed of
types of crops to be grown in potentially water scarce areas.
This may result in tensions between regional yield potential of
irrigated crops and areas of water scarcity which will need to
be managed during Water Framework Directive implementation.
Wetland creation and restoration can play a
significant part in meeting the Directive"s environmental
objectives in a cost effective way.
— Wetlands filter nutrient pollution
and if placed and managed appropriately can help to improve water
quality.
— Wetland restoration will address
many of the problems of soil erosion and rapid run-off which contribute
to flood events.
— Opportunities exist for wetland creation
which will also provide increased flood storage benefits.
— Wetland creation has significant
additional benefits in the form of increased biodiversity and
opportunities for tourism/recreation.
3. WHAT ARE
THE FINANCIAL
IMPLICATIONS FOR
FARMING?
The Water Framework Directive will have financial
implications for farmers. Total costs are currently difficult
to gauge, due to uncertainties over the likely standards for good
ecological status and the need to apply risk-based methods at
the water body and catchment scale. However, costs must be seen
in the light of the existing subsidy bill for UK agriculture,
and the opportunities for major reforms during the period of transposition
and implementation.
Agricultural subsidies from public funds stand
at approximately £3bn in the UK each year. There is widespread
acceptance that money is not spent in a way that adequately reflects
public expectations of farming or gives the best deal for UK farmers.
The acknowledged need for reform is driving plans to implement
the Curry Commission report on the future of farming and food,
and negotiations for the Mid Term Review of the Common Agricultural
Policy. Where the outcome is more money for the delivery of "public
goods" (including environmental goods) and fewer direct payments
linked to production, meeting Water Framework Directive requirements
should become easier for many farmers.
The Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) that
accompanied the first Defra consultation on the Water Framework
Directive took no account of these proposed reforms in determining
the possible costs which farmers may incur in complying with the
new law. The RIA should therefore be interpreted with caution,
and the issue addressed more fully when a revised version is drawn
up in 2003. It is urgent that a range of agricultural reform "scenarios"
are considered when assessing the costs and benefits of implementing
the Directive.
It is also important to remember that not all
farmers will face the same level of costs from implementation.
Many measures (but not all) will be cost neutral or cost beneficial
for the farmers who adopt them. For example, Environment Agency
research shows that farmers who adopt better pesticide and fertiliser
management and practice better soil husbandry can make considerable
savings. There is a need to identify both the regions and sectors
where problems are acute and costs are likely to be highest, to
ensure that any additional support for farmers in adapting their
businesses to meet new requirements is appropriately focussed.
4. WHAT ACTION
SHOULD DEFRA
TAKE?
Defra must act to prevent further damage to
the water environment as a result of intensive agricultural practice.
This action is necessary to meet obligations to nationally designated
sites (Sites of Special Scientific Interest) and Biodiversity
Action Plan targets, to comply with the "no deterioration"
clause in the Water Framework Directive, and to initiate change
quickly enough to be confident of meeting the 2015 deadline for
good ecological status.
Defra must publish its strategy for managing
diffuse pollution early in 2003, as part of a wider and fully
integrated agricultural reform package. The strategy should take
into account likely impacts of increased modulation and proposed
changes to the Common Agricultural Policy.
The strategy should contain the following key
"components":
— A commitment to introduce a regulatory
power to tackle diffuse pollution in 2004, in order to allow the
Environment Agency to take action where other voluntary mechanisms
fail and where there is a risk to the water environment. The current
proposals for an enabling power include no timetable for the introduction
of the regulation itself, and little detail of its likely scope
and impacts. This is not an adequate response to the problem;
— A recognition of the role of the
new entry level scheme in delivering simple resource protection.
This will raise awareness of water issues among farmers and deliver
simple but beneficial changes to the farmed environment, for example
using nutrient and manure management plans and wet ditch management.
However, the scale of the contribution the entry level scheme
can make to managing agricultural diffuse pollution may depend
on uptake levels in problem areas and the selection of the most
appropriate measures at the farm scale. Adequate monitoring of
the pilot project should help to assess these choices;
— More targeted higher tier options
in areas of particular aquatic biodiversity sensitivity, linked
to the introduction of more sustainable and wildlife friendly
farming methods. Such options could include:
| — | Support for more mixed farming and extensive farming practices, particularly in areas where intensive livestock management poses severe risks to water quality;
|
| — | Larger scale wetland restoration and creation, including integration with flood storage requirements;
|
| |
— An economic instrument designed to reduce inputs
to the environment and to generate income to help support other
measures. In particular, the encouragement of manure and nutrient
planning as a normal part of farm management could both help to
save farmers money and deliver significant improvements to water
quality.
In addition to measures to tackle diffuse agricultural pollution,
there is a need to further integrate Defra's own plans for more
sustainable flood management with payments to farmers to deliver
"public goods". Ongoing proposals for reforming agri-environment
payments should consider the need for incentives to farmers to
alter land management practices and provide additional flood storage
capacity. Existing flood control budgets should be examined for
value for money of paying for hard engineering solutions versus
catchment land use planning. These measures could also have significant
"spin-off benefits" for wetland wildlife.
Administering River Basin Management Plans
BACKGROUND
The RSPB gave evidence to the Environment, Food and Rural
Affairs Select Committee's Enquiry on the Water Framework Directive
on 30 October 2002. The Committee requested that we submit a paper
on how River Basin Management Plans (RBMPs) might be administered
in the UK. The criteria behind administrative structures are that:
— They can deliver all the Water Framework Directive
requirements including public participation;
— They can ensure the most effective use of sub-plans
under the RBMPs;
— They are practical and achievable—and do
not add to administrative burdens in the long term;
— They can minimise conflicts between users;
— They can promote integration with other related
land management, biodiversity and water policies and legislation
to ensure cost effectiveness.
This paper provides some details of how this might happen
from an English perspective. It makes explicit links to the land
use planning system. It draws on recommendations made by partnership
projects, academic research, pilot projects and the Royal Commission
on Environmental Pollution (2002). It is based on the view that
genuine integrated catchment management is necessary to achieve
Water Framework Directive and other water related objectives in
a cost-effective way that is sympathetic to natural processes
and ecosystem functions. A range of options is provided for the
Committee to consider.
The RSPB believes that the Environment Agency will be unable
to meet the environmental objectives and the public participation
requirements of the Water Framework Directive alone, even with
extended powers. It has no experience of producing plans with
any real weight in the land use planning system, nor does it have
expertise in actively engaging communities and citizens. Current
problems with agricultural and urban diffuse pollution, the poor
state of our designated wetlands and many rivers and lakes, and
recent flood damage to property illustrate these issues. The Agency
has also focussed traditionally on chemical water quality, and
thus has some way to go on incorporating the concept of ecological
water quality into its thinking. While the Environment Agency
has experience in catchment management, it still has some way
to go in meeting the holistic requirements of the Water Framework
Directive. LEAPs (Local Environment Agency Plans), and prior to
that Catchment Action Plans, quietly disappeared or were not delivered.
Additionally, LEAPs had no weight in the land use planning process.
Current catchment plans run by the Environment Agency are
issue specific and not integrated with each other. From a stakeholder
perspective this makes it difficult to participate, and almost
impossible to see the catchment from a holistic perspective. It
is also problematic as local authority boundaries and regional
government boundaries do not coincide with water catchments. Additionally,
decisions and activities undertaken by other organisations, such
as local authorities and English Nature, will have a major bearing
on the success or otherwise of implementation.
Defra's Second Consultation document on the Water Framework
Directive says little about how to administer RBMPs or ensure
cohesive links with the land use planning system. These issues
may have been downplayed because of their complexity and political
nature, and the reluctance to use current reforms in agriculture,
water and planning policies to pursue genuine joined up thinking.
In New Zealand, for example, environmental policy, local government
and planning systems were reformed at the same time—resulting
in a streamlined environmental planning system where regional
government is now based on catchments (Resource Management Act).
We do not propose this for England now, but we fear that Defra"s
narrow approach is not only missing opportunities for much needed
reform, but may also add to the bureaucracy of environmental policy
by simply adding another planning layer while achieving little
extra benefit.
Why link land use planning policy with river basin management
plans?
Many land use planning decisions affect the good status of
waters. These include water resource requirements for new housing
developments, water run-off from developments and infrastructure
which can exacerbate flooding and cause pollution, developments
on functioning floodplains which have detrimental effects on natural
flood management processes, and point source discharges such as
sewerage and downpipes. Local authorities will need to play a
key role in achieving the Water Framework Directive"s objectives.
To do this effectively, there will need to be regulatory links
made with the Directive's policies and administrative structures
and a much clearer understanding between the Environment Agency
and local authorities of how to integrate objectives and address
significant pressures on water bodies.
"Non regulated" land use and river basin management
plans
The use of rural land, i.e. in agriculture and forestry,
has profound impacts on water and wetlands and the health of catchments
in general. Impacts result from diffuse and point source pollution,
over-abstraction of water in water scarce areas, and land drainage.
There is no easy "fix" as agricultural and forestry
practices are not regulated through the planning system or other
such strategic planning mechanisms—unlike development and
the use of land as defined in the Town and Country Planning Act
1990 (as amended - S. 55). We do have some opportunities - for
example implementation of the Nitrates Directive, indicative forestry
strategies and agri-environment schemes, but these all have serious
limitations. However, under new Regulations[12],
environmental assessments must be carried out for certain agricultural
projects on uncultivated/semi-natural land.[13].
In addition, practices on rural land are distorted by Common
Agricultural Policy subsidies, and steeped in cultural norms.
For the Water Framework Directive's objectives to be met there
will need to be clear links made between its programmes of measures
and rural land use policies and practices.
Drawing together water objectives with land use planning
systems and largely non regulated rural land use is a considerable
challenge, given the often conflicting policy objectives (or lack
of them), and the different "planning" mechanisms used
to govern these activities. The RBMP structures should be used
to draw these activities and policies together as effectively
as possible—they could serve as a tool to facilitate integrated
decision making on water issues.
Potential administrative models for RBMPs
There are a number of ways that RBMPs could be administered,
with no one ideal model. The RSPB offer the options below for
consideration, with brief discussion of their relative strengths
and weaknesses - these could be treated as a "pick and mix"
selection, depending on regional/local circumstances. The first
option is that which appears in the current Defra Water Framework
Directive consultation document. The remainder are alternatives.
Approach laid out in Defra Second Consultation (2002)
Defra has proposed that the Environment Agency be given a
duty to prepare draft plans, in consultation with relevant bodies
such as English Nature, the Countryside Council for Wales, water
undertakers and local authorities. The Agency, as Competent Authority,
would coordinate the programme of measures and the development
of plans. Statutory guidance would be provided to the Agency on
how to do this.
The consultation document states that arrangements for implementation
will need to ensure that planning authorities take account of
the objectives which the Water Framework Directive creates. However,
it does not say how this will be done. It states that further
consideration is required as to whether regulatory or other measures
are needed to ensure that land use planning and development control
systems and the RBMP programmes of measures support each other
as far as possible. Again, no details are provided. The Directive's
requirements on Strategic Environmental Assessment (see Annex)
will need to be taken into account.
Neither the Government's Planning Green Paper Planning: Delivering
a Fundamental Change (December 2001), the Deputy Prime Minister's
Statement Sustainable Communities: delivering through planning
(July 2002) nor the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill (December
2002) make reference to the Water Framework Directive or RBMPs.
This is a serious omission if land use planning and RBMPs are
to be integrated effectively.
Strengths and weaknesses
Given the lack of detail it is difficult to comment on how
this model might work. The lack of analysis seems to illustrate
that Defra is either not taking the issue seriously, or has not
had the time to consider options.
The Environment Agency as sole Competent Authority with guidance
for relevant bodies
As implied by the Defra consultation, in this model the Environment
Agency would act alone, with no river basin management authorities
or boards. Guidance would be provided for planning authorities
and other relevant bodies, which would simply urge them to take
account of the requirements, functions, aims and objectives of
the RBMP, Programmes of Measures or the Water Framework Directive.
This option would inevitably lead to the delivery of relevant
programmes of measures via other plans and programmes, for example
the development plan (e.g. in relation to housing allocation).
If the programme of measures is identifiable, transferable
and relates easily to the spatial dimensions of the development
plan then this "take account of" requirement might be
viable. However, given the disparity between the geographical
areas of RBMPs and regional body and local authority (political)
boundaries, the uncertainty about what the programme of measures
will be, and the scale at which these will operate, there is very
real concern that the "take account of" option will
be little more than a token gesture at the plan preparation stage.
This will inevitably lead to unnecessary delays in the planning
system as the Environment Agency is forced to meets its European
obligations by challenging planning decisions on a plan by plan
and case by case basis.
Strengths and weaknesses
We believe that this option is the least desirable - as it
lacks certainty, is ad hoc and does not encourage other agencies
and organisations to take responsibilities for their water-related
activities. In terms of administrative burden, it would provide
the least change in the short term for the Environment Agency
and other bodies, but in the long term would increase casework
for the Agency, which already appears to show some signs of being
overstretched.
Creation of a River Basin Management Authority acting as Auditors
Under this model, the Environment Agency would be the sole
Competent Authority—with a River Basin Management Authority
acting as the auditor of the RBMPs. This auditing function would
be based on the requirements of the Strategic Environmental Assessment
(SEA) Directive, the objective of which is to provide for a high
level of protection of the environment and to contribute to the
integration of environmental considerations into strategic decision-making.
Carrying out SEAs during preparation of RBMPs/programme of measures
should help production of more sustainable plans by promoting
integrated environment and development decision-making, design
of environmentally sustainable plans and consideration of best
practicable environmental options and alternatives.
The vetting of the plans against the SEA by the Authority
would provide a valuable audit of the environmental sustainability
and the level of environmental protection provided by the plans.
The Authority would vet the plans' polices against the results
of the SEA and revise them accordingly. If a plan were found to
be wanting in relation to the SEA, the Authority would recommend
changes. If the Environment Agency was minded to ignore the recommended
changes, then there would be a statutory referral mechanism to
the Secretary of State, modelled on the call-in requirements in
the land use planning regime.
The composition of the Authority is a significant issue,
given the wide ranging nature of Water Framework Directive requirements.
It would be likely to include representatives of regional and
local government bodies, business, environmental regulators, agencies
and interests, communities, etc. The composition of some of the
current informal regional assemblies or Local Strategic Partnerships
may provide a model. The Environment Agency would be responsible
for the public consultation elements of the Directive, possibly
in association with local/regional government bodies. It could
undertake this either at the River Basin District level (unlikely
to be effective) or at the catchment level (likely to be more
effective - particularly if based on the "drivers" in
that catchment, such as flood management or diffuse pollution).
Strengths and weaknesses
The main strengths of this model involve the clear integration
of the Water Framework and SEA Directives, which should result
in transparent external quality control from a range of experts
and stakeholders, and the early identification of any problems
with the RBMP. It should also encourage environmentally friendly
solutions to problems, rather than "end of pipe" solutions
which may be easier to implement but will not always be the most
sustainable solution (nor satisfy the polluter pays principle
of the Water Framework Directive). However, the Environment Agency
may find it difficult to work with an Authority that can effectively
veto its RBMPs - the SEA Directive does not prescribe who should
undertake the environmental assessment.
Creation of River Basin Management Boards as Advisory Boards
Under this model, the Environment Agency would be the sole
Competent Authority - with a River Basin Management Board acting
as the advisor to it in each River Basin District. Here the Board
would be made up of key players representing the three pillars
of sustainability - economic, social and environmental - and would
include those with responsibilities for community education and
involvement, flood management, fisheries, navigation, water abstraction,
diffuse and point source pollution, water levels, land use and
community plans and biodiversity action plans. Rural land users
would need to be included.
This Board would work closely with the Environment Agency
in the development of RBMPs. This could be done formally or informally
- for example in setting up the Board during certain aspects of
plan production and programmes of measures design to advise on
specific issues (ie flood management) and or specific spatial
areas (ie a catchment). Local Authorities could provide a conduit
for the public participation elements of the Water Framework Directive.
The Board could co-ordinate the public consultation elements of
the Directive, and undertake this either at the River Basin District
level (which is unlikely to be effective) or at the catchment
level (likely to be more effective - particularly if based on
the "drivers" in that catchment, such as flood management
or diffuse pollution).
Strengths and weaknesses
The strengths of this model lie in the co-operation of a
range of players who could bring valuable expertise, and a co-ordinating
function for the Environment Agency in the development of RBMPs
and programmes of measures. It could promote the integration,
or at least coherence, of Agency objectives, i.e. conservation,
flood management and development—although this would be
voluntary. This model is also likely to be supported by the Agency.
However, as noted in the Wise Use of Floodplain project results,
unless the Advisory Boards had appropriate funds and incentives
to fully participate in the process, the will may not be there
to be as actively involved as necessary. Issues would arise over
priorities and funding and the Agency may find itself operating
alone - with the Advisory Boards simply providing "on paper"
assistance.
River Basin Management Authorities as Executive Bodies
In this model, the River Basin Management Authority would
be an executive body charged with developing RBMPs and the programmes
of measures, and undertaking the public consultation in each river
basin. It would be the Competent Authority - with the Environment
Agency acting as an operating authority and regulator. There are
international precedents for such a model. The Authority would
be given the resources and powers to ensure the plans were delivered
(pooled from current and future organisational responsibilities),
with appropriate consultation, and links made to all relevant
land use activities. The Authority could be made up of key governmental
organisations - such as English Nature, Defra regional staff,
the Countryside Agency, regional and local governments and perhaps
the relevant water company. The Authority would benefit from a
secretariat of experts in resource economics, hydrology, ecology,
and social policy. It could also have a small headquarters in
each district to provide a "one stop shop" for stakeholders
and communities.
Strengths and weaknesses
This model has the most potential to encourage real integration
and co-operation, and would be transparent. In the long term,
it is the most likely to deliver genuine integrated catchment
management - as it would have the resources and powers to do so.
However, it would require a change of culture amongst operating
authorities and government agencies in terms of shared responsibilities
and interdisciplinary working. It would also require an overhaul
of current administrative structures and possibly a shift in regional
government boundaries to match those of the RBMPs. This is unlikely
to be politically acceptable in the current climate.
Implement the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Environmental
Pollution (Report of Environmental Planning)
The Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution recommends
an integrated system of planning in its report on Environmental
Planning. The recommendations for this report are based on over
two years of study and detailed consideration of the very complex
issues and decision-making processes involved in "environmental
planning" and management. The Royal Commission proposes a
four dimensional regime tackling air, water, land and soil in
an integrated way. It makes a number of recommendations that are
relevant to Water Framework Directive planning.
It states that the use of land for agriculture, forestry
and countryside recreation should be issues covered in all spatial
planning in the future. Integrated spatial strategies should be
introduced which take into account all spatially related activities
and all spatially related aspects of environmental capacity. This
should be four dimensional and look forward at least twenty-five
years.
An integrated spatial strategy must specify exactly what
contributions are expected from local development plans and from
the activities of other public bodies. To ensure that all of the
relevant bodies contribute fully to preparation of the integrated
spatial strategy - and are committed to its implementation - it
should have a firm statutory basis, and the lead body should be
clearly designated. All other public bodies should be placed under
a duty to co-operate in its preparation and comply with it where
it affects their activities. It should be a statutory requirement
that local plans or local development frameworks must comply with
the integrated spatial strategy. Wherever appropriate, the policies
and targets in the integrated spatial strategy should be reflected
in the community strategy or plan.
The Royal Commission also recognises the potential positive
influence of implementation of the SEA Directive - carrying out
an SEA of an integrated spatial strategy will provide a comprehensive
picture of potential environmental effects in a geographical area.
Whereas "if the requirements of the Directive are applied
in a formalistic way to the present plethora of partial, overlapping,
and often inconsistent plans produced by various bodies, they
could become a burdensome charade".
Strengths and weaknesses
This is the most radical option—and requires full integration
of RBMPs into an integrated spatial strategy. While the optimal
solution, it is unlikely to be supported by decision-makers given
the apparent lack of political will to connect up planning reform
with agricultural reform, flood management and water quality.
The challenge of radically reshaping political, administrative,
legal and environmental institutions, as tackled in New Zealand
in its Resource Management Act, appears too radical a step for
the UK Government.
Catchment Boards
Any of these options could be supplemented by catchment bodies
(i.e. boards or steering groups) that represent individual catchments
in the river basin district, i.e., each river basin district is
made up of a number of catchments. This was a basic recommendation
of the Wise Use of Floodplains project (www.floodplains.org).
Catchment bodies would draw together the various sub-plans that
operate at a catchment level—for example catchment flood
management strategies, catchment abstraction management strategies,
shoreline management plans and coastal plans and any future catchment
plans for biodiversity. A catchment officer could facilitate and
drive forward the activities of these bodies. Again, there are
a number of ways that catchment boards could operate.
Critical to the success of these bodies, no matter what their
status, is the need to ensure that someone has a full time responsibility
to co-ordinate and drive forward their programmes and actions
and that they are regarded as the "mainstream" of water
policy. Without this mandate, they would not be able to operate
effectively.
The most radical option would see a Catchment Management
Board with operational staff steered by a Board of eight to ten
elected or appointed (for a term of one to three years) members
with a presiding chair (three year term). The board would be truly
representative of the range of stakeholders within a catchment.
Typically, a board could consist of:
— 2 local authority representatives;
— 2 water management professionals/academics/consultants;
— 2 environmentalist/ecologists/biodiversity conservation
experts.
There is a range of funding possibilities. One would fund
each Board through a catchment-type levy including all abstractors,
all council tax and business rates payers and all landowners (i.e.
all those who will benefit from better management of the catchment).
This could replace abstraction licence charging and any Internal
Drainage Board levies.
A more conservative option would be catchment management
bodies merely advising and assisting the Environment Agency in
the development of RBMPs - with a bottom up (catchment based),
top down (national policy guidance) approach with RBMPs in the
middle. Here, the following representatives could be involved:
— Environment Agency: water quality, water resources,
flood defence;
— English Nature/Countryside Council for Wales;
— Defra Rural Development Schemes;
— Environmental non-governments organisation representatives;
— Local Community representatives;
— Landowner representatives.
What might need to change?
Depending on how the river basins and sub catchment administration
arrangements are set up, this could involve some of the following
organisational changes:
— The transfer of the powers and responsibilities
of the Internal Drainage Boards and the abolition of Internal
Drainage Districts (duties and responsibilities subsumed into
the new catchment boundaries);
— Transferring the remaining land drainage and flood
defence duties and responsibilities of Local Authorities (for
example Critical Ordinary Watercourses—COWs—would
be passed to the Environment Agency for management and control);
— The transfer of relevant Environment Agency staff
in area and district office teams to the operational teams of
the River Basin Management Authority or Board;
— Administrative structures that ensure the Directive's
public participation elements can be implemented - the Environment
Agency could learn lessons from local authorities;
— The recruitment or secondment of planning staff
into relevant Environment Agency offices;
— Shifts and/or increases in resources amongst the
major players such as the Environment Agency and local authorities.
Local authorities would require training and guidance on ecological
water quality issues;
— Synchronisation of RBMPs with development plans
on a six yearly cycle;
— Update of relevant planning policy guidance (PPGs)
including at least PPG 25 (Development and Flood Risk) and PPG
13 (Transport), and probably PPG 1 (General Policies and Principles),
PPG 11 (Regional Planning), PPG 12 (Development Plans) and PPG
23.
Linking land use planning with Water Framework Directive obligations
Including the Article 4 objectives of the Water Framework Directive
in the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill (title to be confirmed)
The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill was introduced
to Parliament in December 2002. The current reforms of planning
legislation offer a rare opportunity to formally link the new
planning regime (and new plans) in England to RBMPs. Unfortunately,
government has not chosen to capitalise on these reforms to promote
critical policy integration. This Bill could be amended to ensure
that opportunities are not lost or seriously delayed. Issues that
might be considered for amendments include incorporating key land
use planning elements of Water Framework Directive objectives
into the proposed sustainable development duty for development
plans and Regional Spatial Strategies (clause 38) or:
— Other appropriate mechanisms to secure a commitment
towards this end, such as a requirement that the Water Framework
Directive is incorporated in the new Regional Spatial Strategy
or Local Development Documents - to help deliver the objectives
of the Directive insofar as they relate to the statutory land
use planning system;
— The Environment Agency would be a statutory consultee
on the Regional Spatial Strategy, plans and planning applications,
and must be consulted by the planning authority in all circumstances
where the aims and objectives of the RBMP (programmes of measures)
may be relevant. Agency objections to a development plan or individual
application would prompt an inquiry or hearings and, where the
planning authority was minded to grant permission contrary to
Agency advice, the case would be referred to the Secretary of
State by Direction for a potential call-in.
Piloting these options
There is a range of opportunities that could be used to pilot
any of these options.
1. The UK is proposing a pilot river basin for public
engagement in the Ribble. We believe that this public engagement
should be trialed as part of a broader look at how to administer
RBMPs. To engage the public, appropriate institutional arrangements
must be set up to provide a framework for the use of participatory
mechanisms.
2. An opportunity exists to trial an option in an existing
"experimental" catchment. One such could be the Parrett
Catchment (Somerset), which is developing an integrated catchment
management plan and has major local support. The plan is based
on sustainable flood management, but its scope is being widened
to include Water Framework Directive objectives. However, the
Parrett Catchment is technically a sub-basin, and any option would
need to be scaled up to River Basin District level.
3. An opportunity to start trialing options relating
to River Basin Management Authorities exists with Defra's current
proposed reforms of flood defence, whereby the concept of flood
management regional customer bodies may be introduced to replace
Regional Flood Defence Committees. These bodies could have their
duties expanded to include integrated catchment management - i.e.
all Water Framework Directive objectives. However, the regional
customer bodies would have to have the same geographical boundaries
as river basin districts. This is not currently the case and Defra
is not proposing to align Water Framework Directive boundaries
with regional customer body boundaries. This is a missed opportunity
for integration.
The RSPB is grateful for the contributions of Iain White
and Joe Howe of Manchester University in the preparation of this
paper.
10
"Junk Food for Plants. How Nutrient Pollution is threatening
the UK"s wild flora" Duckworth, J;Davis, R and Costley,
J. A Report for Plantlife, The Wild Plant Conservation Charity,
2001. Back
11
"Agriculture and natural resources: benefits, costs and potential
solutions". Report of the Environment Agency, May 2002. Back
12
The Environmental Impact Assessment (Uncultivated Land and Semi-natural
Areas) (England) Regulations 2001 & the Environmental Impact
Assessment (Uncultivated Land and Semi-natural Areas) (Wales)
Regulations 2001. Back
13
The requirement for environmental impact assessment of change
of use from semi-natural habitats to intensive agriculture is
being introduced, belatedly, for changes which are likely to cause
significant environmental effects - in accordance with the requirements
of the EU Directive on Environmental Impact Assessment. It is
notable that the problems facing the "planning" and
administrative "control" of agriculture have resulted
in this late implementation of the Directive - primarily due to
the lack of an extant decision making process for such a change
of use. Back
| 
