30/06/09
Recently published River Basin Management Plans show progress in classifying water bodies and defining how to improve them. But they also reveal significant gaps.
There is a lack of clarity in essential areas such as the measures required of different sectors; sources of funding for all sectors; plans to minimise greenhouse gas emissions; and use of the 'polluter pays' principle. Also, the plans are flawed by an unequal and uneconomic division of responsibilities and costs between the involved sectors.
The water industry has a coherent delivery plan courtesy of the Price Review process, but in most other cases the Environment Agency (EA) has not been able to articulate coordinated actions to deliver the high-level measures.
For example, it is fair to ask when there will be coordinated catchment plans for various water bodies, rivers, lakes. Do the sectors that operate within those catchments know what they have to do and when? And will the EA be able to monitor progress against the actions and the impact on the specific objectives for the water body?
We know that for drinking water protected areas, at least, the answer to the last two questions is no, as delivery plans have not yet been prepared. But what of other catchment schemes, which in theory should fit together into River Basin Management Plans?
We are where we are, but more needs to be done to make the plans real before they are finalised. Water companies are committed to playing their full part in implementing the WFD. Progress has been made, but if the gaps remain, the sustainability of the whole project could be at risk.
Water UK response on draft River Basin Management Plans for Phase 1 implementation of the Water Framework Directive
Environment Agency consultation
