Environment and Rural Development Committee,

Meeting date: Wednesday, May 25, 2005

Official Report 244KB pdf

---

Water Environment and Water Services (Scotland) Act 2003: Annual Report 2004

I welcome members, visiting members, the public and the press to the 15th meeting in 2005 of the Environment and Rural Development Committee. I remind people to switch off their phones. No apologies have been received.

Item 1 on the agenda is consideration of the annual report to the Scottish Parliament on the Water Environment and Water Services (Scotland) Act 2003. When we debated the Water Environment and Water Services (Scotland) Bill, the committee and Parliament agreed that the Executive should report to Parliament on progress on implementation of the water framework directive. We considered such a report last year.

Lewis Macdonald, the Deputy Minister for Environment and Rural Development, is here and is accompanied by officials. We will have the opportunity to run through what has happened in the past year—it is now two years since the bill was passed—and to ask what progress has been made. I invite the deputy minister to make opening remarks, after which he will take questions from members.

I will be brief in introducing the second annual report on the Water Environment and Water Services (Scotland) Act 2003, which was passed by Parliament both to provide a framework for the protection of the water environment in Scotland and to conform to the requirements of the European water framework directive, which came into force five years ago and established a framework for European Community action in water policy.

The Water Environment and Water Services (Scotland) Act 2003 transposed the directive into Scots law. The act applies to all waters in the natural environment—all rivers, lochs, estuaries, coastal waters up to 3 nautical miles from the coast and groundwaters. Its purpose is to protect and improve the ecological status of the water environment in Scotland, while supporting the social and economic interests of people who depend on that water for a living.

As the committee knows, the 2003 act requires that we submit an annual report to Parliament setting out our progress in implementing the act's provisions. The 2004 report, which is before the committee, highlights some important developments. Perhaps the most significant relate to our understanding of the pressures to which our water environment is subject. Work analysing the impact of human activity on Scotland's water resources was completed and published in 2004, and is referred to in the part of the report that deals with impacts and pressures.

For the first time, we have a comprehensive and authoritative picture of the pressures on our valuable water resources. We now know that 45 per cent of water bodies are under pressure from activities ranging from dams and abstractions to point-source pollution and alterations to the beds of watercourses. The act that Parliament passed mirroring our European obligations requires that, having established the nature of the pressures and impacts, we take action to address those issues in a proportionate way.

The report sets out clearly the next step that we are required to take, which is to introduce controlled activities regulations. Later this morning, we will discuss the draft Water Environment (Controlled Activities) (Scotland) Regulations 2005, which have been developed over a two-year period through extensive consultations with the national stakeholder forum. The forum involves the whole range of industries that depend on our water resources to make a living. The regulations combine our most up-to-date knowledge of the water environment with a pragmatic approach to managing the impact of our everyday activities. They ensure that we will be able in next year's annual report to report adequately on progress that has been made on improving and protecting the water environment.

The 2004 report is an important publication. It provides a useful brief summary of the progress that was made during the year and points the way ahead to what more needs to be done to put the Water Environment and Water Services (Scotland) Act 2003 fully into effect.

My question is about point 6 in section 2 of the report, which deals with responsible authorities. During consideration of the Water Environment and Water Services (Scotland) Bill, there was much discussion about who would be responsible for what. The point was made that, although the water division of the Environment and Rural Affairs Department was being very responsible, it was not clear that the same was true of the agriculture sections. At the time, the Executive undertook to do more joined-up working. How has that progressed? Are other Executive departments examining how they may ensure that the ideals that are enshrined in the 2003 act are upheld?

Under section 2 of the 2003 act, we are required to designate responsible authorities and the enactments that must be complied with under the act. Internal discussions are under way across the Executive between the parts of the Executive that have responsibility for the act.

This year we will publish proposals for designating relevant enactments and responsible bodies. They include the Forestry Commission Scotland, which is a good example of a body that is part of the Executive but which must address those responsibilities. I hope that, in next year's annual report, we will be able to give an account of the work that has been done.

Members will be aware that separate work is being done on proposals that relate to diffuse pollution, which is probably the biggest single concern in relation to agriculture.

I was thinking more about land management contracts, which could be used, for example, to encourage the creation of wetlands on farmland by reclaiming salt marshes from the sea. Is that in ministers' minds at all?

It is certainly in ministers' minds, although I am not sure what stage of the process we are at. [Interruption.] My officials point out to me that we are still considering how best to do that. There is a wider agenda on land management contracts, much of which is still under discussion, but the 2003 act points us firmly in the direction that we should seek to promote such measures.

I have two substantive questions, but I would first like to raise an issue that puzzles me. The second paragraph on page 15 of the annual report states that cost estimates

"peaked at over £15 million",

but further down the page, the report states that they

"have been reduced by £25 million."

I assume that one of those figures must be a misprint.

I had another look through the report yesterday evening: that figure jumped out at me, too. The figure of £25 million is for a five-year period. The original estimate was £15 million a year for five years, but after the work that we did to encourage the Scottish Environment Protection Agency to find ways to reduce the overall cost impact, the estimate was reduced by £5 million a year, which comes to £25 million over five years.

That clears that up.

The report points out the massive diversity throughout Scotland in impacts and geographical status. Will more localised sub-river-basin planning take place as part of the overall river basin management plan, for which the whole of Scotland is taken as one river basin?

Plans will have to be put in place for each of the catchments within the Scotland river basin. That describes accurately the position that we must reach by 2009.

SEPA's strategy, which will be published later this year, contains a proposal to have about eight or nine sub-basin plans that will feed into the national plan.

Right. Page 11 of the annual report states that, when SEPA considered drinking water protected areas, it did not have enough information on private water supplies. Do local authorities hold that information?

We are seeking to introduce provisions under which local authorities will have to register private water supplies. The status quo is that the information that councils have on that is patchy. We want to ensure that the system is standardised, but that is a slightly separate process, although it is relevant.

I imagine that, if SEPA prepared the register of private water supplies, it would be allowed to charge for cost recovery. Will local authorities have the same option and, if not, how will the work be funded?

You are right that SEPA would be able to charge for that. Our colleagues have made provisions with the local authorities. I am not sure whether the authorities are to get extra funding, but there have been discussions to ensure that sufficient funding is available. We felt that it was more proportionate to have that process in place rather than to have private individuals pay for registration. We deliberately ensured that there will be minimal cost to individuals who have private drinking-water supplies.

The draft regulations and the measures that have been taken under the 2003 act, on which we have reported in the annual report, will not directly impose costs or registration requirements on small-volume abstractors.

So some public body will pick up the tab.

You will be aware of our climate change inquiry report, which was published last week, and the need to climate-proof policy decisions. What thinking have you given to the impact of climate change on our water resources? How do you intend to adapt to some of the changes that are coming?

It is implicit in everything that we are doing under the 2003 act that we recognise that there is a process of change. We are seeking to put in place a robust regime that will protect the water environment both against human activity—or the potential negative impacts of human activity—and against other changes that are preventable. For example, one of the important areas that are touched on in the report relates to flood prevention planning. As you know, the flood prevention proposals that we expect from local authorities must, in every case, include provision for the impact of climate change. Clearly, a process will be required to consider the needs of flood prevention schemes against the requirements under the 2003 act. Part of that interface will be the requirement that the flood prevention schemes must have built into them a provision for climate change. That same principle applies across the board.

Let us return to Maureen Macmillan's point about land management contracts. Do you see an opportunity to adapt to climate change effects through LMCs?

Land management contracts give us a great opportunity to consider the whole range of environmental action and provision that we need to make in relation to the management of land. As I said in response to Maureen Macmillan, the process of working out how that can be done continues. Climate change is clearly one of the impacts on the environment that we will need to consider.

I have one more quick question. On page 16 of the annual report, you talk about remedial and restoration measures, which are quite important. In my community, there is a salmon ladder that is in a poor state of repair, which probably inhibits the movement of fish upstream at certain times of the year, but it would probably cost a lot to upgrade that salmon ladder. What measures might you introduce to help to bring about targeted remedial and restoration works to improve our water environment?

It is important to emphasise that such measures must be—to use the word that Mr Ruskell used—targeted. They must make a difference and they must be proportionate. There is no point in our requiring measures to be taken that are simply unaffordable or that do not relate to the scale of the problem. They must also be cost effective, and the judgments about their cost effectiveness will be for ministers to make rather than for any of our implementing agencies. We will make a judgment on what scale, level and type of remediation is affordable, proportionate and effective.

It is too early for me to give more specific answers. In looking at remediation and restoration measures, we are looking to 2012. The point of introducing regulations at this stage is to give businesses the time and the opportunity to make the capital plans that they will require once they have seen the measures that are to be implemented under the river basin management plans in 2009. Between now and 2009, there will be a process of identifying what measures need to be taken. Then, between 2009 and 2012, businesses will be required to make those investments, having had the time and opportunity to plan for them.

Might there be something tangible in next year's report for us to look at?

There may be a further indication. In next year's report, there will be responses to the consultation on charging, which, in the short term, is probably a more pressing issue for businesses in relation to the licensing process.

Page 4 of the annual report gives some indication of the timetable that is required. You will see that we are looking to publish a work programme for producing the river basin management plans next year. We are looking to begin the process of overviewing the management issues in each river basin in 2007. It will be important that we work with businesses that have an interest in the water environment and on which the plans will impact. They will have to look forward to the kind of remediation measures that they will be required to take. It is important to emphasise that there will be full consultation and that the issues will become clearer in the next year or two.

Let us turn to the principle of sustainable development that is promoted by the 2003 act. In addition to environmental benchmarking, has any analysis been made of the economic and social impacts of water systems?

Environmental and social impacts are of key importance. The 2003 act is founded on a sustainable development approach. In other words, the Water Environment and Water Services (Scotland) Act 2003 requires us, as the responsible Government and the agencies that act on our behalf to take into account social and economic as well as environmental considerations. That is clearly the starting point. In considering what measures follow from the act and the Water Environment (Controlled Activities) (Scotland) Regulations 2005 that implement the act, the consultation will focus on social and economic impacts as well as on environmental considerations.

It is a matter of getting that balance right, and that includes assessments of proportion. In response to an earlier question, I made the point that interventions and responses must be proportionate. It is in that area that the social and economic considerations will be taken into account. What we will require businesses to do will have to be proportionate to their impact and to social and economic considerations. There is no point in requiring a business to be more responsible in looking after the water environment if that business is no longer there to look after it. The proportionality of requirements is central.

You have inherited a water environment that includes hydroelectric dams. Hydro dams were mentioned in the climate change inquiry, and the condition of those dams is something that we know little about, although they could have a major impact on water systems. Can you tell me a bit about that?

My second question is about distilleries and the lades that lead water off, and which have done so for 100 years and more, in some cases. Are those lades seen as a natural part of the inherited water environment?

I do not think that we could describe either dams or lades as natural parts of the environment; nevertheless, they are a part of the environment.

I used the word "inherited".

Yes, I think that "inherited" is right. The process that we will undertake under the Water Environment (Controlled Activities) (Scotland) Regulations 2005 will involve SEPA acting on our behalf as the licensing authority. SEPA will work with hydropower companies and distilleries to assess the state of their assets and those assets' impact on the environment. We are not starting from the basis that the infrastructure that exists is a problem; our starting point is that they exist. However, we will look to businesses that operate that infrastructure to ensure that it is in good condition and that it remains in good condition to carry out its functions. The assessment process for a hydro dam will be significantly greater than the assessment process for a distillery lade, because the impacts of a hydro dam on the water environment are significantly greater than the impacts of a distillery. Nonetheless, all infrastructure that has an impact on the water environment and which may have a substantial impact will be considered closely.

We expect that, where a hydro scheme, for instance, is having a continuing damaging impact on the water environment—not simply by being there, but if remediation is required to mitigate a damaging impact—that will be addressed under the remediation measures that I was asked about a moment ago. However, the golden rule of proportionality and cost effectiveness will be applied in such cases. The same will apply to any remediation measures that may be required of the whisky industry in some cases, although distilleries have a much smaller effect on the water environment.

In the case of industrial operations that use a lot of water but have very little impact on the water environment, the assessment under the licensing procedure may demonstrate that the impact is not even sufficient to continue to require licensing. In that case, a licence will no longer be required once the assessment has been made. It is important to make the point that there will be some industrial-type operations that have a significant impact and in respect of which remediation may be required, but that must be cost effective. There will be other operations whose impact is not significant; therefore a licensing requirement will not continue once the assessment has been made.

That is fine for just now. I presume that we will get more detail in the next report as you flush out what needs to be done and what requires remediation.

Yes.

We will slide swiftly past that pun.

I have a couple of questions about sustainable flood management, which is one of the issues that emerged when we were debating the Water Environment and Water Services (Scotland) Bill. There was concern at that time that because we were making action on flooding a priority, there was a danger that we would go for concrete solutions rather than more natural management approaches. Two years on, do you have a feel for how local authority flooding schemes are being developed and whether the concerns that were expressed have come to fruition?

There have been interesting developments over the past two years; as I am sure members of the committee are aware, the level of support that the Executive provides to flood alleviation and prevention schemes has been increased significantly. At the same time, consideration of climate change has been built in as a requirement in planning such schemes. We are encouraging and we are seeing increasing signs from local authorities of soft engineering options, such as—to refer back to Maureen Macmillan's question—creating, or in some cases recreating, wetlands to absorb floodwater, rather than relying entirely on concrete solutions, which is the traditional method. The scheme that I opened recently at Lhanbryde in Moray has elements of both the hard engineering solutions in the settlement and soft engineering solutions up stream. As far as we can judge from what is coming forward from councils, we will see increasing emphasis being placed on the soft engineering solutions, as opposed to the hard engineering solutions.

That is good to hear, because we were concerned about that a couple of years back. I do not see any members indicating that they want to ask questions, so I will make a final point—Maureen Macmillan has been prompted into putting up her hand. Both Mark Ruskell and Maureen Macmillan asked you about land management contracts, which you said were under discussion and which came up in our common agricultural policy reform inquiry and our climate change inquiry. It is fair to say that if you were to incorporate the suggested approach in tiers 2 and 3 of the land management contracts, you would have the full support of the committee. We encourage you to take that on board. The issue came up in passing when we debated the tier 1 regulations. We are keen to see the Executive take that forward. You have our support in advance of your doing anything.

That is very helpful. It is always good to have committee backing; it is an advantage.

We also want to be consulted nearer the time.

Of course.

Maureen Macmillan has a quick question.

The committee insisted that planning permission for fish farming be included in the Water Environment and Water Services (Scotland) Bill. Is everything going smoothly? I note what you say in section 20 of the annual report. Have any difficulties arisen?

I would not say that there have been difficulties, but there are complex issues to address in relation to marine fish farms, because we are venturing into new waters, so to speak. We are still on course to introduce the necessary secondary legislation next year.

Okay—that wraps everything up. I thank the minister and his officials for bringing us up to date on implementation of the act and I look forward to next year's annual report.