Examination of Witnesses (Questions 60-79)
Ian Pearson, Mr Ian Macdonald and Mr Rob Hitchen
24 JANUARY 2007
Q60 Lord Moynihan: Could I come onto
the Daughter Directives and ask the Minister, given the uncertainties
in the full implementation of the Water Framework Directive itself—some
of which we have heard about and fully appreciate—are you
confident that the recently adopted Groundwater Directive is fully
in line with your objectives regarding the Water Framework Directive?
That may have been reflected in some of the working party work
that Mr Hitchen has just referred to, but I would be grateful
if you could give us confidence that that is the case.
Ian Pearson: Yes I am confident. I say that
because the Groundwater Directive allows Member States to adopt
a risk-based approach to groundwater protection and we think that
is very much the right approach. It ensures groundwater bodies'
chemical status will properly reflect whether the environmental
immunity role of the groundwater is at risk rather than whether
prescriptive or inappropriate EU-wide standards are exceeded.
It requires Member States' action on pollution trends to be proportionate
in its safeguards, but we think a workable approach to pollution
prevention and control. Ian might want to say a little bit more
about the detail of it.
Mr Macdonald: The essence of what we regard
as the success of the new Groundwater Directive is its risk-based
approach. That happens, for example, in the way in which standards
are applied to bodies of groundwater. They will not function as
pass/fail indicators but as triggers for investigation to see
what the real condition of the groundwater body might be and what
action should be taken in the programmes and measures required
under the Water Framework Directive.
Q61 Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer:
You have talked about the qualitative measures. The Water Framework
Directive also looks at quantitative measures and obviously for
groundwater that might pose particular issues. Do the same comments
apply, do you think?
Ian Pearson: There certainly are serious issues
for groundwater. My understanding of this is that groundwater
can take a very long time to clear if you were to try to take
remediation action. It is not quite as simple and straightforward
to deal with as an issue.
Mr Macdonald: The new Groundwater Directive
does not deal with any quantitative issues; that is reserved to
the main Framework Directive.
Q62 Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer:
So there is no implication for the Groundwater Directive from
quantitative issues.
Mr Macdonald: I would perhaps just add that
if a groundwater body is very badly damaged then of course that
has a quantitative impact.
Q63 Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer:
Can I press you a little bit further on the implementation of
it. What is happening about addressing some of those quantitative
issues as far as the Water Framework Directive goes?
Mr Hitchen: UKTAG (the UK Technical Advisory
Group) are developing some groundwater related standards in support
of good groundwater status. One aspect of that is quantitative
status. They are working up those proposals at the moment and
they are looking to make those public in the spring for a stakeholder
review. Some of those mechanisms will come to light fairly soon.
Also, the Agency is working closely to link the Water Framework
Directive with catchment abstraction management strategies (CAMS)
as well to make sure that there is join up. Under the Directive
there is a requirement in terms of groundwater status, that groundwater
dependent eco systems must be protected in order to meet good
groundwater status and an aspect of that is quantitative status.
Q64 Lord Moynihan: Whilst still on
the Daughter Directives—possibly moving to Mr Macdonald's
specific area of expertise—we understand that the Priority
Hazardous Substances referred to in the proposed Environment Quality
Standards Directive are those agreed in the November 2001 Priority
Substances Decision. Do you have any particular concerns about
the application of the EQS Directive to any of them?
Ian Pearson: Maybe I can say something in broad
terms and then Ian, who leads negotiations in Brussels for us,
will provide some more detail. You are right to say that the 33
priority substances were those agreed in 2001 and are prioritised
on a risk-based procedure, taking into account monitored and modelled
exposure data and properties of persistence by accumulation and
toxicity. There is a sort of robust methodology here but we are
concerned that that methodology which is used for setting the
EQSs is based on a risk assessment procedure; it is not designed
to determine legally binding quality standards. We have concerns
about the safety factors that have been used to calculate EQSs
where there are not the available toxicological data in some cases.
We think that this is resulting in highly precautionary and stringent
standards that could actually drive very costly investment to
achieve objectives and might only have marginal environmental
benefit. We actually think that the alternative approach of actually
collecting more data would avoid the uncertainty that is actually
inherent in this approach. That is why we would favour having
provisional standards and seeing lower safety factors. That is
part of our negotiating remit for the coming few months.
Q65 Lord Moynihan: Can you give us
an example of where you see the balance between excessive investment—or
costly investment, to use your phrase—against the marginal
benefit applying?
Ian Pearson: In some cases there are not the
actual data to determine whether there is any benefit or what
the scale of the benefit might be on that. We are dealing with
areas of uncertainty.
Mr Macdonald: It is getting the balance between
a properly precautionary approach and the certainty in the calculation
of the correct and scientifically correct quality standard. To
come to your point, I think there are ten substances which we
have singled out—only ten out of the 33—where the
safety factors greater than ten have been deployed in order to
cope with the lack of confidence in the data.[1]
That list is: benzene, dichloromethane, endosulfan, fluoranthene,
hexachlorocyclohexane, napthalene, octylphenols, pentachlorobenzene
and trichlorobenzenes. The safety factors there are in some cases
up to 500, so when you have arrived at a suitable value at which
you think the aquatic environment would not be damaged and then
divide it by that large number, you come up with a quite small
value as a result which may sometimes be justified. But until
you have enough data you cannot be certain that it is. In the
Water Framework Directive, as the Minister has said, this could
drive investment, for example, in the water industry, in order
to get down to very, very small values. It may be in a few years'
time we will realise that we would have been doing enough with
perhaps a less precautionary standard, and our approach would
be in negotiations to see whether the Commission and other Member
States would consider a provisional standard, as they have already
proposed for a couple of metals. They have already adopted that
approach when they were convinced themselves they were uncertain.
Q66Lord Moynihan: That could be quite a lengthy
process. My final question, Minister, is to ask you what progress
you see on the EQS Directive under the German Presidency. What
is the current nature of the debate in the Council and in the
European Parliament?
Ian Pearson: The German Presidency have said
that it is their intention to try to seek political agreement
at the June Council. The European Parliament is actually debating
this issue this week, the First Reading of the debate is this
week. There are obviously still issues that a number of Member
States, including the UK, have with regards to the Directive.
Whether it will be possible to reach political agreement by June
we will have to see. We have some red lines in the negotiations
ourselves, particularly in terms of making sure that Article 4
of the Water Framework Directive applies to this Directive. We
need to see that being clearly demonstrated.
Q67 Viscount Ullswater: In our initial
deliberations on the Environmental Quality Standards Directive,
we were unsure as to what the particular costs and benefits of
the Directive might be. The Environment Agency emphasised the
importance of taking a realistic approach to implementation. I
think you mentioned a risk-based approach. Can you outline what
analysis Defra has undertaken or is undertaking? I do not know
whether Mr Macdonald would want to expand on the sort of answers
he was giving to my colleague just a minute ago. In particular,
perhaps if I could ask you, if the Directive allows some flexibility
in terms of extending deadlines—I think you said to begin
with that the timetable was a challenging one—and you run
up against this concept of disproportionate costs or technical
feasibility, and if it is the case that this happens and you were
not able to fulfil the deadlines by 2015 will Defra lay down a
clear timetable for achieving those standards by 2027 as stipulated
in the Directive?
Ian Pearson: Firstly let me say something about
the draft Regulatory Impact Assessment that was attached to the
Explanatory Memorandum and the estimates of costs and benefits
of the proposals that are in it. You will see from looking at
it that there are a number of different options in the proposal.
In part the RIA looks at the worst case scenario of Article 4,
which is the issue of proportionality not applying, and that produces
some pretty high numbers in terms of controls that might be required.
The cost of end-pipe controls to achieve environmental quality
standards are estimated at some one billion for additional treatment
at water industry sewerage treatment works if we were required
to meet all the requirements in the Directive as they stand in
the proposal at the moment, although we confidently believe we
are likely to be successful in ensuring that Article 4 does not
apply. When you look at it, therefore, I think the Environment
Agency is absolutely right in saying that we need to take a sensible
approach to the likely costs and benefits of implementing this
proposal. It is very difficult, I think, to determine what those
costs are definitely likely to be at the moment in the absence
of any sort of agreement and in the absence of some of the detailed
work that might be done on what is the right and proportionate
approach to take here. In terms of your point about 2027, I just
want to say that it clearly is an objective of the Water Framework
Directive to aim to achieve Good Status in WFD water bodies by
2015 and we are committed as a Government to achieving that. But
the Directive does allow us to set alternative, less stringent
objectives providing certain conditions are met. That gives you
the opportunity to set alternative objectives to extend the deadline
by one or two cycles, which would be 2021 or 2027. One of the
key justifications when deciding what those alternatives objectives
might be is that measures and mechanisms needed to achieve the
objective would be disproportionately costly. There are other
conditions as well but that is one of the clear ones. Certainly
when it comes to groundwater, as well actually achieving Good
Status in all areas, I think it would be impossible given groundwater
conditions in some areas at the moment. What we will need to do
as part of the process is firstly be clear on what we mean by
Good Status. There is still work going on to define exactly what
Good Status is. Good chemical status will be determined as a result
of this Directive, but it is up to individual Member States to
define what Good Status is for their particular River Basin Districts.
Then we need to look at the evidence of the water bodies in that
River Basin District in terms of where it is at the moment to
identify what the gap is and then set proportionate objectives
to actually achieve that Good Status. That is the sort of process
that needs to be gone through. You can envisage that in some River
Basin Districts, once you have the definition of Good Status agreed,
you might find it difficult—if not impossible or impractical
or disproportionately costly—to achieve objectives by 2015,
and therefore as part of that planning process you might decide
not to set objectives for 2015 but then you would want to set
objectives for 2021 or 2027.
Q68 Viscount Ullswater: I am rather
encouraged by that reply because it seems to be that not only
do you have the flexibility of being able to argue on the quality
status but also on the timetable involved with cost in mind. Is
that a correct statement?
Ian Pearson: That is right, yes. Unlike some
other EU Directives the Water Framework Directive does build in
the issue of disproportionate cost and that is important. When
you look at the Bathing Water Directive, for instance, there is
no flexibility. I think one of the significant benefits of the
Water Framework Directive is that it does allow a proportionate
approach to be taken to these issues.
Q69 Chairman: How do you know when
something is disproportionately costly?
Ian Pearson: It is ultimately a matter of judgment,
and I think you get to making that decision by a thorough analysis
of the costs and benefits of the proposal. You have to look at
the costs required to produce marginal increases in benefits.
There is, I think, quite a well established process for actually
doing that.
Q70 Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer:
This goes a bit to the heart of the way that the Government and
the Environment Agency choose to implement the Directive, does
it not? You could make it very much easier for yourselves by downgrading
the status and saying you will go for a less Good Status, but
I have understood from the water industry—and I think Pamela
Taylor is on record as saying—that, if the Water Framework
Directive was implemented pretty stringently, although there would
be costs, they would be borne by the polluters and that actually
the benefits environmentally would be massive. One of the things
that was striking was that there was one voice from the water
industry, the environmental NGOs and so on, and I am worried that
by downgrading the effort on status actually the benefits at the
end of tap which the water industry identified would be passed
on to the consumer because of the fact that the clean-up of water
would be much less than is needed now. Huge amounts are spent
by the industry in stripping out all sorts of substances which
should not be there. Do you think there is merit in actually looking
at a more stringent approach given the fact that there is this
consensus from quite unlikely allies like the water industry and
the environmental NGOs?
Ian Pearson: Let me make it clear that there
is absolutely no intention to downgrade standards here. What we
are doing through the UK Technical Advisory Group is developing
common UK environmental standards and conditions that will support
the achievements of good status under the Water Framework Directive.
These standards have been developed in two tranches. Defra has
received the final recommendations from UKTAG on the first tranche
and UKTAG will produce a further report on the second of the two
tranches in the Spring. We will consult on both these tranches
of standards so that everybody will have an opportunity to comment.
In terms of drinking water quality, we have some of the highest
quality drinking water to be found anywhere in the world. I do
not believe the issue of Good Status really affects the already
high levels of drinking water quality we have at the moment, but
having river basins in good ecological status is, I think, very
important for environmental reasons.
Mr Macdonald: On the point about whether we
would relax standards, where these quality standards for the priority
list substances are concerned there will not be any flexibility.
There will be numbers and we will have to comply in order to demonstrate
Good Status or good chemical status. Also, where the water industry's
costs are concerned it is true that cleaner resource would reduce
treatment costs but I am afraid the water industry also has clean-up
costs of its own. So in order to produce the cleaner resource
it will have to spend a certain amount to discharge cleaner water.
It is very slightly circular in that sense. There may be a balance
to be struck there.
Chairman: Could we explore the issue
of Good Status further? Lord Plumb?
Q71 Lord Plumb: You have just given
us a definition of Good Status; the question is when is this going
to be achieved? When will you sort of draw a line and say that
this is now an agreed status between all members of the European
Union? To what extent will economic development play a part in
all of this, which obviously is quite important? You referred
earlier to the huge areas of basins and you made the point yourself
that a lot of these are going to cross borders, and therefore
you have to have a European status which is acceptable. We are
talking presumably, when you are talking about Good Status, about
both quantitative in a sense and qualitative assessment of what
you term as good. Again you can move on to the different levels
of purification. I opened a sewage works not so very long ago
and they were trying to prove to me that the end product was purer
than the water that came out of the tap. Having failed to prove
this to me, when we went into lunch they gave me a huge glass
to prove it. As I took a large gulp from this glass, I realised
it was neat gin. Nevertheless, it set an example that purification
is a very major part of this and all sorts of things can be done
with liquids that are flowing into these large basins. We do not
rule out desalination because there is a lot of water around in
the seas of the world which are travelling in the direction of
the rivers which are going into the basins themselves. It is a
very wide area so, as the Chairman says, let us have a little
more definition of Good Status.
Ian Pearson: We are keen as a Government to
ensure that through the work of UKTAG we do have common UK environmental
standards. As I explained, this is being done in two tranches
and will be consulted on. The range of stakeholders who have an
interest in these matters will have opportunities to comment.
It is also right, as well, that there is at least a consistent
approach across Europe to these standards. That is why there is
an inter-calibration process that is taking place. Rob, you might
want to say something more about how that works. The intention
is that we have a level playing field and a common view of the
sort of modalities of what Good Status is all about.
Mr Hitchen: If you take good ecological status,
the Directive (in the annex) talks about so-called normative definition,
so it defines what good ecological status is in terms of ecology.
So, if you take fish fauna, the kind of fish fauna you would expect
to see in Good Status water bodies. It also defines it for high
status and for moderate status. In a sense that is already in
the Directive. What Member States are trying to do through inter-calibration
is a process of harmonising the ecological classification systems
of each Member State, and that process is due to complete, as
far as it is possible in the first cycle, by the end of this year.
In that sense there is that sort of level playing field, the level
of understanding of what good ecological status is. Then Member
States have to try to interpret the outputs of inter-calibration
in their own classification scheme. If you take fish fauna, for
example, we need to decide in the UK what level of ammonia in
our rivers and lakes can support that fish fauna and that level
is what UKTAG are developing at the moment, what they are consulting
on—the first tranche of standards and the second tranche
of standards in support of good ecological status. You have a
common EU approach, if you like, in broad terms in defining the
ecological status, but then there is the flexibility for Member
States to define what that means to its levels of ammonia, levels
of phosphates in rivers and lakes, because it is going to vary
across the EU depending on climatic and geographical factors.
Ian Pearson: Presumably it will vary from river
to river in the UK depending on the characteristics of that river.
Q72 Lord Plumb: Nitrogen?
Mr Hitchen: Nitrogen is an ecological limiting
factor in coastal waters, so UKTAG are considering some nitrate
standards in coastal water. The UKTAG standards are type—specific,
so a chalk stream will have a different level of phosphate required
to support ecology.
Q73 Lord Greaves: I want to pick
up the interaction between all this and the wider world, as it
were. First of all, general public involvement and the requirement
in Article 14 to involve the public. When Baroness Young of Old
Scone gave evidence to the Committee last week (I was not there
but I managed to read the transcript), she suggested that public
involvement—the involvement of people on the street corner
or in the pub or whatever—in areas like this is a chimera
and what really matters to them are outcomes and not feeding in
their views into the process of how it is going to work or even
the operation of the system. Is that your view? Do you think that
the proposals of the Environment Agency meet with the requirements
on this? Can I also ask you about the implementation of it as
far as the interaction with what I would call the democratic system
and the planning system? The District Liaison Panels (the word
"district" is not the word I would use for these areas)
are going to cover the river basin in the North West for example,
which more or less is the North-West region with a bit of juggling
to account for where the water actually goes. How will these regional
panels work? Which other groups, organisations or bodies will
be part of them? and how will they interact with the planning
system and with local authorities?
Ian Pearson: There are a number of questions
there. First of all let me agree with Baroness Young, that people
are interested in outcomes and they do want to see our rivers
and streams and lakes in Good Status. I think it is important—as
has already been made quite clear—this is a very technical
area in some respects and I think that needs to be reflected in
the nature of the consultation. The Environment Agency has a strong
track record when it comes to consultation and involving stakeholders.
We believe it will ensure that the delivery of the public participation
requirements of the Water Framework Directive will be met. As
I think you will be aware, the Agency established a Liaison Panel
for each River Basin District in the middle of last year and this
includes representatives from three main areas: organisations
representing sections of the public who will be affected by the
implementation of the Water Framework Directive; those responsible
for actually delivering the measures; and also the Regulators
as well. I know from my time as Environment Minister that certainly
the make-up of the panels was subject to quite a lot of debate
and a fair amount of lobbying as well. My understanding is that
the panels are currently working successfully, although there
is a lot of work to be done and it is still early days.
Q74 Lord Greaves: What are they doing?
Ian Pearson: The panels are doing the work in
preparation for the production of the River Basin Management Plans,
looking at the work on the characterisation of the River Basin
Districts. There will be a full programme of work for them for
the future. The Environment Agency, as Baroness Young will have
told you, is also working with stakeholders in other ways, such
as through Defra's National Water Framework Directive Stakeholder
Forum, and there have been written consultations on River Basin
Management Plans and key documents leading up to their production,
and also through a variety of forums at a local level. I am confident
that people who want to get involved with this process will have
the opportunities to be involved. As I said, when it comes to
consultation of what Good Status is, there are opportunities there
for people to get involved and to express a view.
Q75 Lord Greaves: What is the timescale
for the River Management Plans, and when they are produced, how
will they then interact with the planning system? Will it be at
the regional level through the regional spatial strategists or
will they be documents to be taken into account at the level of
detailed planning applications, for example? Or would it simply
be through what then appears in the regional spatial strategies?
Ian Pearson: Given the scale of the River Management
Plans it is, as I understand it, basically through the regional
spatial strategies at that high level. In terms of the timetable,
Rob is policy lead on implementation and may want to say something
on that.
Mr Hitchen: In terms of the timescale, the largest
role for the River Basin District Liaison Panels is to advise
the Agency in the preparation of significant water management
issues, reports which the Directive requires to be consulted on
by the end of 2007 for six months. I think the Agency are proposing
to do it earlier than that. As the Minister rightly pointed out,
the draft of the River Management Plans will be consulted on at
the end of 2008, again for six months as stipulated in the Directive.
The regional liaison panels will have a very important role in
taking those forward. They do have a very important role at the
regional level and in terms of the River Management Plans public
bodies are required to have regard to the River Management Plans
and the requirements within it, but also both Defra and the Agency
are seeking to influence other public bodies to participate in
the plans.
Q76 Lord Greaves: So they will be
at a strategic level really, the River Management Plans.
Mr Hitchen: They are intended as a strategic
document. I do not know whether you have seen it, but Defra and
WAG produced a guidance document last year on river basin planning
and within that is set out the kind of strategic approach that
should be set out within the plans.
Q77 Lord Cameron of Dillington: In
some catchments the agriculture industry is going to be pretty
important to the effective implementation of this Directive. Last
year the Environment Agency were talking about the importance
of cross-compliance in this. I guess from that I have two questions.
Cross-compliance is all about having proper infrastructures in
place and the proper management procedures for handling waste.
In other words, it is all about point source pollution. I was
just wondering whether Defra foresaw a problem with more diffuse
pollution, in other words river catchments where actually there
are too many livestock around. In my area in the South West, the
Tor and the Torridge used to be a prime example of where there
were too many cattle and, whatever you did with the slurry at
whatever time of year, it was actually beginning to have an effect
on the quality of the river. I was just wondering whether that
was a problem and how you think you may be able to deal with that.
We are dealing with quite a long timescale here. My second question
is what happens when maybe cross-compliance ceases to have any
legal relevance, because the Single Farm Payment has evaporated?
Ian Pearson: Agriculture is certainly one of
several sectors that may, and probably will, need to take action
to ensure that the Water Framework Directive objectives are met.
The Government's view on the reform of the Common Agriculture
Policy is a matter of public record, and you will have read about
our vision for CAP reform. We do want to see radical reform of
the Common Agriculture Policy in the future. I think it is fair
to say that it will remain for some time. We believe strongly
in cross-compliance and, as you will be aware, we have various
schemes through environmental stewardship to encourage good environmental
practice above the basic cross-compliance requirements. I think
that those are important and I have no doubt we will want to see
them continue as a matter of policy. When it comes to diffuse
pollution, we accept that there is a problem here and we intend
to consult shortly on a package of measures with regard to diffuse
pollution, in particular pollution from phosphorous, sediment
and faecal indicator organisms. We are currently analysing a range
of possible policy mechanisms to achieve that. There are certainly
plans to tackle diffuse pollution, but we will want to do it in
partnership and in consultation with the industry.
Q78 Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer:
I would like to go back to something Lord Greaves touched on with
local authorities and then go on to the cross-government approach.
As far as local authorities go, Baroness Young said last week
that there was—as I think you just mentioned—a requirement
in the Directive to have due regard to the Water Framework Directive.
But what she would like is a far more stringent requirement on
local authorities to deliver the objectives of River Basin Plans,
in other words that would be a very different approach. First
of all, do you think that that is reasonable, and would you be
asking the Department for Communities and Local Government, to
actually put that requirement into local development frameworks?
Secondly, to pull out Lord Greaves' point, do you actually think
that the local authorities at that much more local level—I
hesitate to use the word "district" because it is in
this context that it is being used for the big area—or unitary
authority level or even county level really do have sufficient
forums at the moment to discuss some of these issues which will
impinge on them enormously if they are going to be required to
deliver the objectives of the plans?
Ian Pearson: Defra works very closely with Communities
and Local Government on a wide range of environmental issues.
I agree with Baroness Young that local authorities will have to
have regard to River Basin District Management Plans. We have
not yet set the objectives for these, so in terms of finding what
the requirements might be on local authorities I think it is a
little bit early to judge. But there are clearly issues in terms
of the planning process that we will need to take account of in
the future.
Q79 Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer:
I think Baroness Young actually wants them to have more than due
regard to it; she wants the Government to impose on them a requirement
to deliver the objectives. If you agree with her and that actually
happens, what say will the local authorities have had in that
process?
Ian Pearson: That is Baroness Young's view.
I just think it is premature to actually decide what further action
might be required when we have not even set the objectives yet.
It is something that we want to consider. There are obviously
also other stakeholders who will have an interest and be actively
involved not just in the planning process but will have to take
action when it comes to implementation. What the appropriate balance
of responsibilities is, I think will have to be determined on
a River Basin District basis.
1 Note by Witness: Witness subsequently corrected
`ten' substances to `nine' substances. Back
| 
