Freshwater

Scottish Water conflict bad news for the environment - Scottish Environment LINK's Freshwater Task Force, comment:

Commenting on the resignation of Scottish Water Chair Professor Alan Alexander, Andrea Johnstonova, Convenor of LINK Freshwater Task Force said:

"The delivery of a large investment programme requires good co-ordination and communication between the government agencies, economic regulators and Scottish Water. The resignation of Scottish Water's chair signals an ongoing conflict between these agencies, which could prove damaging for the environment, biodiversity and the Scottish people."

WWF Scotland's Freshwater Policy Officer and Co-Convenor of LINK Freshwater Task Force, Mike Donaghy said:

"Scottish Water has a key role in making good decades of under investment and delivering some of Europe's biggest pieces of environmental legislation. We have long had concerns that the proposed level of environmental investment may fall short of that required to implement improvements needed to meet European requirements and ensure that Scotland's environment is safeguarded."

Water Environment and Water Services Act 2003, Abstraction and Impoundment Charging Scheme, LINK Freshwater Task Force comments, July 2005

Anne Baird,
Senior Admin. Officer,
Water/Land Units + WFD Programme,
SEPA Corporate Office,
Erskine Court,
The Castle Business Park,
Stirling,
FK9 4TR.

19 July, 2005.

Further to your e-mail of 30 June, thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Water Environment and Water Services Act 2003, Abstraction and Impoundment Charging Scheme. I apologise that this response is a day late - however, I have just returned from annual leave and I hope you will still find it of value.

The Freshwater Taskforce of the Scottish Environment LINK congratulates SEPA on their approach to stakeholder engagement. The Regulatory Stakeholder Forum gives an opportunity for all interested parties to provide input into the development of the charging scheme. We would like to emphasise that similar approach should be taken to all areas of work on WFD implementation. The Freshwater Taskforce supports the principles of charging as outlined in the consultation document, and our main comments are written below:

• We strongly support the introduction of a charging scheme that enables SEPA to recover the costs of its operations. The Water Framework Directive requires the operator to bear charges for both environmental and resource costs of water-related activity, which includes mitigation, restoration and administration.
• The Freshwater Taskforce welcomes and strongly supports SEPA's proposals for the charging scheme for abstractions and impoundment being applied to whole licences and not to individual activities. This proposed 'bundling' of associated activities will reduce costs and unnecessary regulatory burden.
• The Directive requires charging policies to 'provide adequate incentives for users to use water resource efficiently…'. Volumetric charging will provide this incentive and should be applied universally. We believe the charging for abstraction and impoundment licences should be based on the volume of water abstracted, with modification factors applied to the costs that reflect timing of abstraction, environmental sensitivity, level of water loss, and use of water. The proposed charging scheme reflects this way of thinking, and we therefore give SEPA our full support on this matter.
• There should only be a minimal charge attached to abstractions that are judged to be delivering biodiversity action plan targets/commitments, and environmental objectives. In pursuit of the delivery of biodiversity planning for wetlands and wetland species, many conservation NGOs carry out management activities that may require licencing. This water use is required to deliver Government's targets and commitments, and therefore the cost of licencing should be minimal. Conservation management activities often deliver wider objectives, and provide 'environmental service'.
• According to current proposals, the operator will only face minimal charge for the issue of authorisation where that activity has a low impact on the water environment. The regime therefore reflects a risk based approach, which must be built into the heart of the WFD charging regime. This system will also encourage low impact water activities, and give industry an incentive to operate in a sustainable and environmentally aware manner.

If you require any further information about this submission, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Yours sincerely

Lloyd Austin
Chair

Controlled Activities Regulations Proposals for Regulation
A Policy Statement from the LINK Freshwater Taskforce, May 2005

Scottish Environment LINK's Freshwater Taskforce warmly welcomes the Scottish Executive's proposals for Controlled Activities Regulations.

These regulations provide an effective and proportionate framework for regulation of activities that pose risk to the water environment, and which will ensure the well-being of our rivers, lochs, coasts and wetlands for generations to come. These will complete an important part of the implementation of the secondary legislation, following the acclaimed primary legislation delivered by the Scottish Parliament, of the Water Framework Directive. The approval of these regulations will safeguard water as an important asset for Scotland's economy, wildlife, tourism and people.

We therefore recommend that the Environment and Rural Development Committee approves these regulations and ensures that Scotland continues to lead Water Framework Directive implementation in Europe.

"The Bill will give us powers to tackle environmental problems... The bill will also give us powers to control water abstraction where necessary. Those who abstract in a manner that is sensitive to the environment should in no way fear that power. Despite our obvious wealth in water resources, we face problems of over-abstraction in certain parts of the country at certain times of the year. The bill will allow us to balance the rights of one group to extract against the rights of others to pursue other environmental pursuits."
Minister for the Environment and Rural Development, Ross Finnie MSP during the Stage 1 debate on Water Services (Scotland) Bill, 2002.

'Water is not a commercial product like any other but, rather, a heritage which must be protected, defended and treated as such'. (Water Framework Directive)

Scotland is a country rich in natural resources such as water. However, this does not mean that as a nation we have always looked after this resource in the most appropriate way. The extent of damage to the water environment caused by human activities has recently been assessed by SEPA in its 'characterisation report' which indicates that almost half of Scotland's waters are at risk of not achieving good ecological status by 2015.

The primary means of achieving WFD's environmental objectives is through regulation of water abstractions and impoundments, point and diffuse source pollution, and building and engineering works. These regulations will be fundamental to achieving WFD objectives in Scotland, which in combination with proactive measures such as education, encouragement for habitat restoration and incentive based charging regime will safeguard plentiful and clean water supply for all water users now and in future. The regulatory proposals have been subjected to a long revision process. Streamlining and simplification of the proposed regulations resulted in the reduction of the overall costs of WFD implementation. It is now expected that a majority of activities will fall within the scope of the General Binding Rules. This could mean that SEPA may lose an overview of all activities taking place and their cumulative impacts on the water environment. This also means that any further streamlining of these regulations could result in Scotland not being able to comply with the requirements of the WFD.

The Freshwater Taskforce welcomes the Scottish Executive's commitment to introduce regulations early in the process of WFD implementation. This approach is in line with the consensus from all involved, including the industries, that early introduction of regulations will allow the industry sector and other water users enough time to plan the necessary investments for mitigation measures, thus spreading the cost of compliance over a longer period of time. This will ensure that good ecological status is met by 2015.

We would like to commend the Scottish Executive and SEPA on the open and transparent approach to stakeholder involvement whilst developing secondary regulations and charging regimes. The proposals for controlled activities regulations provide a good framework for the development of risk-based and proportionate measures to control impacts on the water environment and safeguard sustainable water use for now and future generations. There will be some cost attached to water users. However, these costs must be seen in perspective. Scotland has an obligation to ensure adequate protection of all waters and their ecology. If the WFD provisions are implemented poorly, the costs to the society, industries and the environment will be great. The economic and environmental gains of properly implementing the Directive far outweigh the costs of its implementation.

This statement is supported by the LINK Freshwater Taskforce and others:
The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds Scotland (RSPB Scotland)
WWF Scotland
The National Trust for Scotland (NTS)
Scottish Wildlife Trust (SWT)
Friends of the Earth Scotland (FoES)

Miss Victoria Elliott
Water Division
Area 1H
Victoria Quay
Edinburgh
EH6 6QQ

Scottish Environment LINK's Freshwater Taskforce response to the Scottish Executive consultation

Controlled Activities Regulations: Revised Proposals for General Binding Rules

Thank you for the opportunity to comments on the revised proposals for general binding rules prior to making these regulations. The proposals for regulations have undergone a significant revision process, and therefore this formal public consultation is particularly welcome.

1. Summary

1.1 The Scottish Environmental LINK's Freshwater Taskforce welcomes the Scottish Executive's attempt to simplify GBRs, and introduce higher flexibility to ensure effective and practical regulations. We already mentioned in our previous responses that we greatly welcome the introduction of 'soft licencing' instead of registration GBRs that would allow SEPA better control over small-scale activities that could have cumulative impacts on the water environment. Soft-licencing also allows SEPA to set site-specific conditions. The Freshwater Taskforce supports the introduction of non-registration GBRs to control very low risk activities, as this makes sense for both the regulator and those being regulated, and significantly reduces the regulatory burden. We further welcome the clarification of the relationship between GBRs and the requirements of the natural heritage obligations.

1.2 The LINK's Freshwater Taskforce is, however, concerned over the controls of certain activities proposed under non-registration GBRs, including some engineering activities. For example, the Freshwater Taskforce believes that dredging activities, works to control erosion and the construction of bridges (minor and temporary) can cause significant environmental harm to the water environment and contribute to the effects of flooding. Permitting these activities to take place without disincentives could contradict the developing policies on sustainable flood management and changes in agricultural practice. The Scottish Executive should ensure integration with the developing sustainable flood management and agricultural policies, and this may require some specific GBRs being given further consideration in near future. The Scottish Executive is in the process of establishing a new committee on flood issues (the Flood Issues Advisory Committee 'FIAC'), which will look at the flooding issues in Scotland and provide advice to the Scottish Executive. The Freshwater Taskforce would encourage the Scottish Executive to put these GBRs to the Committee, which can in turn discuss their implications on flooding and the developing flood policy.

1.3 We are further concerned how some GBRs that specifically apply to the 'river, burn or a ditch' (such as the construction of a temporary bridge and works to control erosion) would apply to wetland habitats and other aquatic habitats associated with a 'river, burn or a ditch'.

1.4 We are concerned that the changes to the GBR 1 (weir operation) could impede the ability of fauna (other than migratory fish) to migrate to suitable habitats once the impacts of climate change become apparent.

2. The revised regime

Activities to be controlled under GBRs without prior registration must not have the capacity to cause environmental harm, whether on their own or cumulatively. The decision about which activities should be regulated under GBRs must be based on risk assessment, and not as a result of cost-cutting exercise.

3. Granting consents to controlled activities in Protected Areas (p. 4)

We particularly welcome the clarification of granting consents that could affect the status of Protected Areas (SACs, SPAs, Drinking Waters, SSSIs). However, we are still concerned how these regulations apply to locally important sites, such as BAP habitats. The introduction of GBRs without registration for activities such as small-scale bank reinforcements, revetments, dredging, and the construction of minor bridges could jeopardise the well being of these sensitive eco-systems and cause deterioration in status. Furthermore, in determining a licence and carrying out its functions SEPA would be required to take account of BAP habitats by virtue of the biodiversity duty in the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004. SEPA may need guidance from the Scottish Natural Heritage as to how this should be carried out.

4. Other activities (p. 8)

The Freshwater Taskforce is unclear as to how these 'other activities' will now be regulated. While we understand that a discharge from septic tanks and sewage system now requires registration or a licence it is not clear how other activities will be regulated.

5. General comments on Engineering Activities and their impact on flood risk management

We are greatly concerned over the use of GBRs without prior registration to control a number of engineering activities that could have significant impact on the ecology of the water environment, including dredging activities, construction and maintenance of minor bridges and works to control erosion. While we understand that these are small-scale activities, and that proper regulation could create an unreasonable regulatory burden, we believe that other mechanism should be put in place to discourage these activities from taking place.

5.1 Impacts of small-scale engineering activities and integration with other policies
We argue that these activities can have significant impacts on hydro-morphological structure of the riverbank and affect biological communities. Through cumulative impacts (for example, small scale (but intensive) bank reinforcements and channelising of small streams on agricultural land) they can also increase the risk of flooding downstream. We believe that these GBRs must be integrated with other relevant policies to ensure no contradictions between objectives and priorities. This is especially important in the light of changing flooding policy to ensure more sustainable and catchment-based approach to flooding and as an adaptation strategy to climate change impacts. This type of control is potentially conflicting with the development of sustainable flood policy, agricultural policies, and the reform of the CAP. Farmers should be strongly discouraged from contributing to the flooding and diffuse pollution problem and encouraged to restore/remedy small watercourses as described below.

Recently there has been a lot of development in the field of flood policy in Scotland. The whole process of dealing with flooding in Scotland is changing towards looking at the flood processes rather than just dealing with the outcome and consequences of flooding.
The Scottish Executive should ensure integration with the developing sustainable flood management and agricultural policies, and this will require some specific GBRs requiring further consideration in near future. Scottish Executive is in the process of establishing a new committee on flood issues, which will further look at the problems of flooding in Scotland and advice the Scottish Executive on solutions. The Freshwater Taskforce would encourage the Scottish Executive to put these GBRs to the new Flood Issues Advisory Committee, which can in turn discuss their implications on flooding and how best integrate with the developing flood policy. The outcome of such review could be a best management practice guidance, which will permit these activities taking place as long as the guidance is followed.

5.2 Generation of local floods and changing agricultural policy
Agriculture policy in Scotland is changing and it has been recognised that future policy requires better integration with other land use policy, particularly those areas of recent legislation that require significant input from farmers (such as the Water Environment and Water Services (Scotland) Act 2003). Public subsidy through the Rural Development Plan together with the increased funding and grant rate to local authorities for flood defence schemes could be used to help farmers/landowners deliver effective flood management for the taxpayer. It has been recognised that the shift in the role of land use sector towards delivering wider public services is inevitable. Most types of flood are generated in the upper and middle reaches of river catchments. However, we require good knowledge and understanding of local flood processes to deal with the risk of flooding effectively. Due to the nature of flooding, there is an important role in this context for land users and particularly for farmers. Multiple, small works in river catchments will alter the rate of run-off and have a substantial mitigating effect on flooding further downstream, while also reducing impacts of diffuse pollution. Examples of works are: the restoration of bogs/wetlands, reconnection of the burn/river with its floodplain, modification of hill drains, de-ditching and re-introduction of meanders, planting of riparian woodlands, control of cattle poaching to reduce bank erosion, and restoration of riparian meadows. There is clearly the need to integrate policies, provide a more long-term solution and take a co-ordinated approach to deal with the flood risk by looking at the processes that lead to flooding and addressing the root of the problem.

6. Comments on specific General Binding Rules

6.1 GBR 1: Weir operation

• We welcome the simplification and clarification of works, which are covered by this regulation. However, we would like to emphasise that any passive weirs/caulds that are not in use should be considered for remedial/restoration works under WFD.
• We are further concerned over the implications of the recent changes to this GBR to only include migratory fish in the remit of this GBR. The new revised adaptation policies to climate change impacts currently being consulted by the Scottish Executive specifically mention the need to allow wildlife migrate to a more suitable habitat. Changes made to this GBR could impede the natural distribution of freshwater fauna to a more suitable habitat. While we understand that currently there is no clear evidence to quantify the impact of small weirs on the distribution of small fish and aquatic invertebrates, we believe it is important that the Scottish Executive seeks advice from the experts on this issue. This approach would be consistent with the precautionary principle built into the Water Framework Directive and uncertainties we currently face in our understanding of climate change impacts on aquatic eco-systems.
• We are further concerned over the wording of one of the rules, more specifically the 'point at which the dam is located is at a level at which migratory fish would not reasonably be expected to seek passage'. We believe that this wording creates confusion rather than clarification.

6.2 GBR 2: Abstractions

• We support the introduction of GBRs to control small-scale abstractions and other water resource activities. We especially welcome the new duty on water users to use water efficiently, and the new condition to ensure minimal water leakage. We are still slightly concerned over the cumulative impacts of this activity, especially in catchments already at risk from low water levels.

6.3 GBR 3 and 4: Wells, boreholes and other works and associated abstractions

• We have no specific comments.

6.4 GBR 5: The dredging of a river, burn or ditch

• We are concerned how this GBR will apply to wetland habitats and other aquatic habitats associated with a 'river, burn or a ditch'. We would like to seek clarification on this issue.
• We are further concerned over the impact of such activities on the hydro-morphology of small rivers and burns. River dredging could lead to an increased risk of flooding, as mentioned in the previous text, and can have devastating impacts on the ecology of freshwater fauna.

6.5 GBR 6: Bridge construction, maintenance and removal works

• Minor bridges can be responsible for localised flooding. This occurs most often when the bridges are built with too little clearance for the flow. Professional advice should be sought in each case as to the required dimensions of the bridge. When debris becomes trapped underneath them, the resulting blockage forces the water around the bridge and out of the river channel. An example of this happened this summer in Menstrie, Clacks, when a tree became wedged under a farm bridge during a flood. The tree had passed under several other bridges safely before encountering the minor bridge. Several houses were flooded and access via the bridge was closed for several days. Our concerns about this GBR are further explained in the general comments on engineering works in section 5 of this document.

6.6 GBR 7: The laying of a pipeline or cable

• We are concerned how this GBR will apply to wetland habitats and other aquatic habitats associated with a 'river, burn or a ditch'. We would like to seek clarification on this issue.

6.7 GBR 8: Works to control the erosion of a bank of a river, burn or ditch using revetments

• These activities are fundamentally destructive to the ecosystems and functions of small streams. Form example, these activities regularly damage sand martin colonies on the river Tweed. Furthermore, the rehabilitation of these watercourses is vitally important to the restoration of wetlands and wet meadows. These small watercourses, if restored, have a significant role in the catchment approach to sustainable flood management and in controlling diffuse pollution where it is a problem. The widening and simplification of this GBR is of a great concern to us, since it allows the repair of existing bank protection works and other activities that impact on the ecology of the water environment. The Freshwater Taskforce recommends that this GBR is improved and brought in line with the developing sustainable flooding policy by attaching a condition applicable to agricultural and other rural land use by which the repair of existing bank protection work should only take place where the flood bank protects the livelihood of the farmer/landowner. Where the land is at significant risk of flooding (1 in 5 year risk of flooding), the farmer/landowner should consider rehabilitation/restoration of this land to its natural function through an application for a grant under LMCs/other provisions.

6.8 GBR 9

• No specific comments

6.9 GBR 10 and 11

• LINK welcomes the introduction of GBR to control surface water outfalls. We welcome the requirements for the construction of a suitable SUD system to treat discharge from all new sites.

If you have any further queries about this submission, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely

Andrea Johnstonova
The Convenor of the LINK's Freshwater Taskforce

Ms Ingrid Baber
Characterisation Consultation
SEPA Edinburgh Office
Clearwater House
Heriot Watt research Park
Avenue North
Riccarton
Edinburgh
EH14 4AP

September 2004

Dear Ingrid

Scottish Environment LINK's Freshwater Taskforce response to the:

Scottish Environment Protections Agency's consultation on the Pressures and Impacts on Scotland's Water Environment

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Scottish Environment Protection Agency's Pressures and Impacts report. Scottish Environment LINK is a coalition of Scotland's major non-governmental organisations, which share a common interest in the natural environment. Scottish Environment LINK's Freshwater Taskforce has a wide range of experience in the freshwater policy, and has successfully engaged in the transposition of the Water Framework Directive in Scotland.
The Freshwater Taskforce of Scottish Environment LINK welcomes the publication of the Pressures and Impacts report, as yet another important step towards the Directive's implementation in Scotland. The report deals with very important issues of analysing and quantifying impacts of anthropogenic activities on our water environment. The pressures and impacts analysis is the result of long-planned processes and discussions about the meaning of reference condition, good ecological status, and significant impacts. The non-governmental (NGO) sector is very disappointed to have been excluded from these processes and discussions at a national level. NGOs have contributed, and maintain their engagement at European level, specifically in the drafting of Common Implementation Strategies. We would welcome SEPA taking a similar approach to that taken by the European Commission in engaging a wide range of stakeholders in these important discussions.
We are concerned that SEPA has not provided the detailed risk assessment information that is needed to understand the principles and processes involved in the decision-making process. We believe this has formed a barrier to stakeholders' understanding of good ecological status, and reference condition, and subsequently affected the ability to comment on the results of SEPA's risk assessment. We hope that future consultations on pressures and impacts will provide a more detailed description of SEPA's results, including results for specific water bodies, threshold values, and details of SEPA's methodology provided in non-technical language.
We are further concerned over the slow progress of wetland characterisation. LINK's Freshwater Taskforce is hoping to maintain active engagement with SEPA on this issue, and we are looking forward to future involvement.
Finally, in our response, LINK's Freshwater Taskforce expressed its concerns over SEPA's approach to the assessment of non-native species. We believe that some potentially very damaging species have been excluded from the assessment, and we hope that the list of species provided in Annex 1 of this response will be beneficial in taking the risk assessment for non-natives further in future, and in designing an effective monitoring programme, which will take a full account of non-native species and help in detecting their presence at early stages of their occupancy.
We hope that the comments we provided will be useful. We are looking forward to our continued involvement in this process, and our future engagement in wetland characterisation.
If you have any questions about this submission, or think a meeting to discuss our comments would be helpful, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Yours sincerely
Andrea Johnstonova
Freshwater Policy Officer for the RSPB Scotland, and LINK's Freshwater Taskforce Convener