PART 2 WITNESSES' VIEWS (continued)
NON-GOVERNMENTAL
ORGANISATIONS
The Royal Society for the Protection
of Birds
18. The Royal Society
for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) generally welcomed the draft
Directive's principal objectives of protecting the environment
and preventing further deterioration of watercourses; they also
endorsed the principles of integrated management by catchment
area of surface and ground waters and the need for more efficient
water use. Water quantity was just as important as water quality
for maintaining aquatic ecosystems-a point not previously acknowledged
in Commission proposals in this field. They cited examples from
Greece, Spain and Scotland to illustrate the potential benefits
of the framework Directive (Q 62).
19. Conspicuously lacking
from the proposals were questions of flood defences and land drainage,
which the RSPB saw as crucial to proper catchment management planning
(Q 63). It should be made quite explicit that these, and
impacts of other human activities, should be covered in the reviews
of river basins required by Article 6 (p 15). Another
deficiency was that of the various measures which river basin
management authorities would address in their plans, demand management
fell into the category of "supplementary" (i.e. discretionary)
measures: the RSPB considered it should be a "basic"
(i.e. mandatory) measure (Q 65). They had commissioned a
study of the scope for tradeable permits in the water field, although
they had reservations about their suitability: tradeable permits
could have the effect of increasing abstractions unless the limits
of sustainable supply had first been established. They took a
stronger position than the Department on environmental cost recovery,
which they considered should be mandatory (QQ 70-75).
20. To ensure consistency
with sustainable development, more explicit reference was needed
in the Directive to biodiversity planning, which should be reflected
in environmental objectives, analyses of river basins, and management
plans. Where catchments included "protected areas" (e.g.
areas designated under the Birds and Habitats Directives[11]),
the management plans should cover candidate areas as well as existing
designations (p 14; Q 78). The Directive should also
refer explicitly to the Communication on Wise Use and Conservation
of Wetlands[12]
(Q 83).
21. The RSPB was "slightly
suspicious" of the Department's proposed expert group, which
it feared might delay agreement on the Directive (QQ 86-88).
Other bodies
22. The Royal Town Planning
Institute, whilst generally welcoming the proposals, felt that
more attention should be given to the implications of global warming
for coastal and estuarine flooding, and of new development for
water supply (p 80). The Wildlife Trusts suggested that
measures to reverse decline in and to enhance biodiversity should
be mandatory (p 87). The World Wide Fund for Nature, whilst
welcoming some positive aspects, felt the proposals had too many
negative aspects to be able to meet the principal objective of
protecting the environment: loose definitions (e.g. of "good"
water status); lack of uniform emission standards; inadequate
policy integration with other sectors; insufficient account taken
of existing Community policies and international commitments;
lack of common standards and methodologies, particularly for monitoring;
and the lack of transparency and accountability inherent in the
proposed "comitology" measure[13]
(i.e. the delegation of much of the decision making and implementation
to the proposed Management Committee) (pp 87, 93-4).
STATUTORY
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AND NATURE CONSERVATION AGENCIES
The Environment
Agency and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency
23. Both Agencies strongly
welcomed the draft Directive (QQ 100, 103). The Environment
Agency (EA), however, outlined a number of aspects which called
for improvement; more guidance was needed on how Member States
should define and employ environmental objectives, particularly
"good status"; the deadline of 2010 was too tight for
many Member States-to avoid the risk of deterioration they should
be permitted to determine priorities for tackling different types
of water, using a "stepping stone" approach; the requirement
to establish quality standards for all surface and ground waters
used for drinking water seemed over-prescriptive; and it was essential
to have comparability between Member States in monitoring régimes
and quality assurance: there was a role here for the European
Environment Agency (Q 149).
24. The Scottish Environment
Protection Agency (SEPA) favoured the introduction of controls
over water abstraction as in England and Wales: at present these
were lacking in Scotland. Ms Henton felt that the draft Directive
did not fully integrate water with other policy areas, especially
agriculture: SEPA would like to be in a position to ensure compliance
with good agricultural practices, in order to tackle the problem
of diffuse pollution. She agreed that the 2010 deadline could
lead to pressure for inappropriate derogations. Although formal
catchment management planning, as practised by the EA, did not
exist in Scotland ("no one in authority has sufficient control
of all the different aspects"), much could be achieved by
cooperation and SEPA would prefer to retain the present
flexible arrangements (QQ 103, 112).
25. The EA explained
that at present Local Environment Agency Plans (LEAPs) were being
prepared for some 130 river systems, mainly sub-basins of larger
river catchment areas. How far these would need to be aggregated
to comply with the requirements of the Directive was a question
for further discussion. At present the wording of the draft appeared
to leave an appropriate degree of flexibility, consistent with
subsidiarity; but it was understood informally that the Commission
was thinking in terms of 30-40 river basin plans across the whole
of the European Union (QQ 105-11; pp 45-6).
26. On the points raised
by the RSPB about wetlands and biodiversity, the EA felt it was
important that the Directive should not lose focus: in their view
"it should be limited to lakes, rivers, peripheral waters
and ground water which have a direct effect on the ecosystem"
(Q 115). If a catchment included a designated area with specialised
requirements, the details of its management should be addressed
under the specific Directive (Habitats or Birds) rather than in
the plan prepared under the framework Directive. That was not
to say that the presence of wetlands and protected habitats was
not fundamental to catchment planning: it was purely a matter
of detail (QQ 116-9). They confirmed that the LEAP process
already met the requirement in Article 6 to review "the
impact of human activity" on water status, and that the "other
anthropogenic influences" (besides pollution and abstraction)
to be covered in reviews would include the impacts of drainage,
river canalization, flood relief schemes, management of wetlands
and development for housing, industry, roads, etc. They had an
open mind on whether this needed to be made more explicit in the
Directive (Q 120).
27. The EA felt the
Directive should give more guidance on what allowance should be
made (applying the precautionary principle) for the impact of
climate change (Q 129). More emphasis should be placed on
management of water resources, perhaps through the use of economic
instruments (QQ 130-2). Both the EA and SEPA agreed that
full recovery of environmental costs was crucial to sustainability
and were keen to contribute to DETR's review. For dealing with
industrial water users they saw incentive-based charging schemes
as a more promising approach than tradeable permits (Q 135).
28. Defining "good
status" was fundamental-the biggest challenge being to agree
ecological standards: this was a developing science, on which
the EA had been working closely with WRc (Water Research Centre)
and French counterparts (among others). They were confident that
converging views would emerge-though it remained to be seen whether
standards could be devised which would be applicable across the
whole of the European Union (QQ 137-8). They agreed that
the use of reference sites (as suggested by English Nature) should
be explored (Q 139). Both agencies stressed the need for
transparency in the workings of the Management Committee: its
role needed clarifying (Q 142).
English Nature
and the Joint Nature Conservation Committee
29. English Nature felt
that implementation of the Directive would produce significant
benefits for key habitats and species, and help to meet the targets
in the United Kingdom's Biodiversity Action Plan[14].
Like other witnesses, they considered the definition of "good
ecological status" would be crucial. Action should be targeted,
in the first instance, to prevent deterioration of existing wildlife
sites; and measures should be directed towards sustainable management
of water resources. The proposed timescale was unrealistic and
could be counter-productive in some Member States. Classification
systems should be as simple as possible, and reference sites should
be established for each type of aquatic ecosystem across Europe,
to exemplify "good", "high" or "natural"
ecological status. English Nature would like to be represented
on the relevant expert working party considering definitions and
monitoring arrangements (p 71). The Joint Nature Conservation
Committee saw the Directive making a positive contribution to
sustainable development and welcomed the emphasis it placed on
protecting and enhancing aquatic ecosystems. They considered,
however, that riparian and lakeside areas were integral components
of aquatic systems and therefore should be included in catchment
planning; they also pointed out a number of anomalies and uncertainties
in the definitions of "status" in the present text (pp 72-3).
11 79/409/EEC, OJ No L103, 25 April 1979, p 1; 92/43/EEC, OJ No L206, 22 July 1992, p 7. Back
12 COM(95)189 final. Back
13 See paragraph 50 and footnote. Back
14 The plan required to be prepared by signatories of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity, signed by the EC and its Member States at Rio de Janeiro in 1992 (93/626/EEC, OJ No L309, 13 December 1993). Back
|
