Memorandum submitted by Water UK (N6)
INTRODUCTION
1. Water UK is the representative body for
the statutory water undertakers, private companies in England
and Wales and public sector organisations in Scotland and Northern
Ireland.
2. Water UK has a good working relationship
with English Nature on a number of policy issues relating to special
nature sites. For example, work is underway to plan more effectively
for droughts and actions that would need to be taken if water
supplies had to be augmented from abstraction points impinging
on these sensitive sites. At a local level water companies work
closely with English Nature and local and national NGOs to deliver
environmental benefits through land management projects and there
is a willingness to do more.
3. English Nature has carried out an assessment
of the condition of all SSSIs over the past few years. They believe
that the water industry in England owns or manages 43,000 hectares
of SSSI land, 4% of the total SSSI land and 65% of all SSSI land
owned or managed by private companies. Whilst we have some disagreement
with English Nature about the precise figure there is no doubt
that the water industry is a major landholder with a large number
of sites with special nature designations.
SCOPE OF
THE CHALLENGE
FOR THE
WATER INDUSTRY
4. Under the CRoW Act water companies, unlike
other businesses, are deemed to be public bodies and have the
same statutory duties as public sector organisations in this respect.
English Nature's assessment process shows that 45% of water company
SSSIs are in favourable or recovering condition. This leaves the
industry with a considerable challenge to meet the Public Service
Agreement target of 95% of sites in favourable condition by 2010.
5. Water companies are committed to maintaining
a good environment. Without one we do not have a sustainable industry.
However four aspects of SSSIs mean that in practice the industry
will find it difficult to meet the PSA target.
ASSESSMENT
6. We have some concerns about the methods
used to assess the condition of the SSSIs. There seems to be some
inconsistency across the country about the rigour with which these
assessments have been made. At the extreme, we have heard of an
instance where a site was designated as failing when no site visit
had in fact been made. There also appears to have been an over
reliance on the precautionary principle and a lack of sound science
and we are not convinced that the assessment if condition was
in all cases effectively related to the original reasons for notification.
We do not believe that English Nature was adequately resourced
to carry out this task and certainly for our sector we feel that
there has not been enough interactive dialogue with the companies
as the assessment was made.
LACK OF
STRATEGY
7. Most private sector landholders are not
experts in nature conservation and look to English Nature to provide
practical advice. The lack of robust management plans is a real
weakness of the current process. The assessment is of course of
interest but what will make the difference is what happens next
and what the implication are for the landholder. Many water companies
do not have a clear steer yet from English Nature as to the actions
that would be required to remediate a failing site, and consequently
the likely costs. We would welcome the formulation of a strategy
by English Nature on how they are going to contribute to the solutions
for SSSIs. Again we have a concern that English Nature does not
have adequate resources to discharge this duty properly. For example,
English Nature has just one hydro-ecologist.
FUNDING
8. The statutory duties of the water companies
with respect to SSSIs have not been routinely funded in the past.
The periodic review process does not value the service targets
on SSSIs HAPs and BAPs in the same way as delivering water and
wastewater services in a cost effectively for customers. Minimising
negative impacts on the environment is an important element of
delivering our services but the restoration of habitats has not
been seen as a priority by the water industry's economic regulator,
Ofwat. Increased investment in water industry land management
projects would deliver substantial progress towards the PSA targets
at minimal cost as well as delivering wider quality benefits.
We are pleased to note that in the Ministerial Guidance issued
by the Secretary of State to Philip Fletcher there is specific
support for the catchment based land management proposals put
forward by United Utilities and Northumbrian Water. It might be
helpful if SSSIs could be put down as assets in company business
plans.
LAND MANAGEMENT
CONSIDERATIONS
9. Many water company owned SSSIs not in
favourable status fail due to overgrazing, drainage or diffuse
pollution issues. These problems may be the direct result of past
and current Government agricultural policy and grant regimes.
Frequently such company sites are leased to and managed by farmers
where the nature of the tenancy agreements does not usually give
the landowner the right to be prescriptive with the tenant mid-way
through the lease. In many cases diffuse pollution takes place
on land within water and river catchments but outside water company
ownership and control. Companies can and do work with farmers
to assist them to change to better environmental practices, but
this is done on a voluntary basis. Such work has not been remunerated
by the regulator and success relies entirely on the goodwill of
the farmers and the powers of persuasion of the company concerned.
WHO SHOULD
PAY?
10. There is also an issue for the water
industry over how far it is right to ask customers to pay for
the consequences of land and forestry management activities. In
the present circumstances customers may be seen as paying twice,
first by subsidising the original land management through the
current system of CAP and secondly by paying for the water treatment
and assets required to deal with resulting water quality problems.
While to some extent we could be deemed to act as environmental
contractors for the Government, there is no public awareness of
this or debate about whether it is the right approach going forward.
MEETING THE
PSA TARGETS
11. A positive outcome at the final determination
for the land management elements of companies' submissions for
PR04 would make a significant contribution to PSA targets and
wider HAP and BAP objectives.
LOOKING AHEAD—KEEPING
THE PROCESS
RELEVANT
12. Finally there is a question for debate
about the whether it is right that SSSI designation is cast in
stone. Whilst it is obviously a public good to preserve and enhance
special habitats, external changes may make it overambitious to
believe that all types of habitats can be maintained. Evolution
means that through time change takes place in any case. Climate
change may lead to changes in our natural habitats and indeed
the habitats and species that can be preserved in any area. We
need a system of designation that is able to cope with change.
12 March 2004
| 
