---

Water Framework Directive

My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Miller and Lady Byford, for this important and stimulating debate. I welcome the opportunity to brief the House on the progress being made in the implementation of the water framework directive. I will seek as quickly as I can to answer the points that have been raised, but I will write to both noble Baronesses answering all points in full if I fail to cover them. The WFD is the most substantial EU water legislation to date and the main mechanism for improving water quality in the future. It sets demanding new ecological and chemical objectives for rivers, estuaries, coastal waters and groundwater across the EU. Both noble Baronesses recognise that it requires management plans for river basins to be drawn up by 2009 and programmes of measures to be operational by 2012 with the aim of achieving the environmental objectives by 2015. I agree with both noble Baronesses that 2015 will come more quickly than people realise. The analysis of the objectives offers some unique opportunities, on which I will draw in a moment. We are working in partnership on the integration of policies, which is the only way in which implementation can be successful. We are taking an active approach to working with other member states in specific working groups within the framework of the EU Common Implementation Strategy. The UK co-leads several of these working groups, including those on the water framework directive, agriculture and ecological status. At the domestic level we are working to the strict timetable set out in the directive, working closely with the devolved administrations, as well as with government departments, and with the respective environment agencies as competent authorities to deliver implementation across the UK. As noble Baronesses have acknowledged, that requires extensive linkages with other policy areas, including agriculture, fisheries, biodiversity, land use planning, tourism and recreation. It is not a simple process, but we must work through the strategy in this way. We are working with a wide range of stakeholders. A national WFD forum has met at regular intervals since 2001 to discuss implementation issues. The Environment Agency is currently establishing liaison panels comprising representatives of key regulators and deliverers in each river basin district. I will come back to the importance of that later. We continue to consult publicly; for example, the department has recently undertaken a consultation exercise on its draft guidance to the Environment Agency on the principles and key steps of the river basin planning process. There are a number of challenging issues that we need to address if we are to meet WFD objectives, including, as the noble Baronesses recognise, tackling diffuse pollution from both agricultural and non-agricultural sources, and addressing hydro-morphological impacts. Those issues were highlighted in the Article 5 reports that the UK sent to the Commission in 2005. Perhaps I should point out that they are issues which we have in common with many other member states. Working across Europe we should be able to develop and learn initiatives and strategies from each other. We are considering the full range of possible approaches, including voluntary, regulatory, economic and information-based instruments, and intend to consult on the most cost-effective options for tackling this issue in the latter part of this year. We are also working at EU level to look at possible solutions—I know that this will be of particular interest to the noble Baroness, Lady Byford—including the use of rural development programmes and CAP cross compliance measures to address diffuse water pollution from agriculture. We will also take this opportunity to apply the principles of better regulation. Compared with previous water directives, member states have greater flexibility in the choice of measures. In answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, economic analysis is central to the directive in selecting the most appropriate measures to achieve good status. In many cases there will be more than one measure or group of measures that could be used. In such cases, the relative cost-effectiveness will be compared as part—and, I stress, as part—of the decision-making process. The directive is realistic in allowing some balance between social, economic and environmental objectives. It sets out circumstances in which member states may set alternative objectives—extended deadlines, or less stringent objectives—if meeting default objectives would be ““disproportionately costly”” or ““technically infeasible””. I will look further into this as the noble Baroness explored that area in her introduction. In answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, the UK has played an active role in negotiating the new groundwater directive. The Council of Ministers reached a satisfactory common position in June 2005 and the next stage is the European Parliament’s Second Reading next month. We will continue to work for an effective outcome. I was asked about the strategic review of hydrological resources. That review has not yet reported on the question, but I will ensure that I write to the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, as soon as some information is available. I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, would also like to be kept informed. On the ADAS story of the massive damage to agricultural land, if we are to meet the water framework objectives the targets for nutrients such as nitrates under the WFD have not been established—except for those under the nitrates directive. The avoidance of disproportionate costs to agriculture is possible through the setting of alternative objectives, but I stress the importance of ensuring that, wherever possible, there is strong public support for meeting the objective of reducing the nitrates. It has to be carefully balanced. Action is already planned to improve sewage treatment in the Thames tributary and other locations. The Government are considering the reasoned opinion and will respond to the Commission within two months as required. I will keep the noble Baroness up to date with information as that process goes forward. Exhaust gases from transport and their filtering and diffuse pollution from aircraft and other transport sources will need to be tackled as part of the directional aims of the river basin districts. If there is more information about how that is to be done, the technical issues and the monitoring, I will write to both noble Baronesses. The water framework directive introduces a new strategic planning process and requirements for stakeholders’ engagement in that. However, many of the requirements are not new but tasks which the Environment Agency already carries out as part of its brief. There is potential for the agency to make savings as a result of implementing this directive; for example, by integrating and streamlining its existing range of planning and stakeholder engagement processes. The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, raised the issue of the polluter-pays principle. The use of economics is central to the water framework directive. It requires that member states have regard to that principle, that water pricing policies provide adequate incentives for the efficient use of water resources, and that account is taken of the principle of recovering the costs of water services. We at Defra will be examining the use of the polluter-pays principle in the collaborative research programme ahead. Although catchment-level planning is not the primary focus of river basin planning, it will make a significant contribution to that. The Environment Agency will work with existing stakeholder groups such as those already contributing to catchment abstraction management strategies. We may also work with other stakeholders whose objectives are aligned with those of the water framework directive, and where no forum exists we may seek to create a new one. As a passing aside, with a keen angler in the family, I doubt that we will have to wait long for anglers to form themselves into a group to look after their interests—and quite rightly too. The directive is realistic in allowing for the use of alternative objectives; for example, the extension of objective deadlines or lower objectives where the improvements are disproportionately expensive or technically infeasible. The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, was right that we will stick to the application, but the points which she raised must be taken into account during the process of analysing whether such changes in objectives are valid and supportable. The directive is important, but it is not the only tool for delivering the Government’s biodiversity targets. As both noble Baronesses know, English Nature and the Environment Agency have piloted a framework for meeting the objective. I apologise to noble Lords in wishing to correct something I said earlier. When I said ““Thames tributary””, I should have said ““tideway””. The noble Baroness spoke about involvement and local networks organisations. I do not have time to go into the way in which river pilot projects have been set up. I have detailed information about the Ribble river pilot project, which will not surprise both noble Baronesses. I am assured that the public are involved at all levels. I am grateful for the Question. I, too, am sorry that I cannot answer all the points that were raised. I have done my best. I thank the noble Baroness.