02/05/08
Even the hardest-line social Darwinist accepts that the selfish gene, pursuing its own 'interest', doesn’t avoid 'social' behaviour. The response of nature to nature can as well be cooperation as individual action. But could working with nature actually encourage cooperation, while giving it less priority leads to going it alone?
The question is topical because it lies behind an important aspect of the 2009 water price review (PR09). At issue is how best to meet a complex range of objectives for the quality of water in the environment.
The water industry’s management of massive investment in environmental improvement in recent years is one of its great achievements. The companies have removed the stain of gross pollution from the nation's character by funding and implementing major projects dealing with urban wastewater, bathing water and the rest. They did it by using scientific and engineering expertise to organise things better for both society and the environment – and they did it pretty much on their own.
Alternative solutions
The work was necessary and successful but also, judging on what we know now, expensive in resources and carbon, its adverse impact on nature greater than we would have wished and desirable in future only in the absence of alternatives. Fortunately, alternatives do exist. But how to distinguish between activities that go with the grain of nature and those that don’t? Among the possible criteria are: their energy and carbon cost; the kind of technology they apply; the identity and location of people involved; and also, if I’m right, the level of cooperation they need (see table).
| Working with nature | Nature is lower priority |
| Catchment-scale co-operation | Single operator, single project |
| Pollution control at source | End of pipe pollution |
| Polluter pays | Water customer pays |
| 'Soft' technology | 'Hard' technology |
| Lower financial cost | Higher financial cost |
| Lower energy use | Higher energy use |
| Lower carbon emissions | Higher carbon emissions |
| Consumers more aware | Consumers less aware |
| Flexible regulatory approach | One-size-fits-all regulation |
| Innovative mind-set | Tried and tested is best |
| Less certain timeframe and outcome | More certainty |
| Sustainable | Traditional |
In some situations the traditional approach will still be best. But now many qualified witnesses prefer (where possible) preventative, catchment-scale actions involving many participants, to single, post-pollution projects that clean up on behalf of everyone else. The big PR09 question is: working together sounds cosy, but will it stand up to rigorous challenge by Ofwat watching out for increasingly stretched bill-payers?
Catchment scale
The industry believes it will and is carrying out pilot projects across the country. Many involve direct liaison with farmers and aim to cut pesticide and nutrient pollution. This is reinforced and focused through Water for Wildlife, the partnership between a group of water companies, the Environment Agency and The Wildlife Trusts. WfW is a skilful broker in explaining the case for "sustainable management of our wetland environment, rather than energy intensive end-of-pipe technologies".
The Government is on board. "We must consider improvements in a joined-up way, looking at the whole catchment, from groundwater, upland streams, rivers and floodplains, through to estuaries and coasts." Also its adviser on wildlife sites, Natural England, has offered to work with companies "to help them adopt a catchment-based approach where possible, tackling a range of water quality and water resource problems at source, rather than relying exclusively on end-of-pipe solutions".
It adds up to a powerful case and is now effectively in Ofwat’s in-tray. In its October consultation 'Setting price limits for 2010-15: Framework and approach' Ofwat listed the requirements of company quality improvement projects: measurable defined outputs; description and monetary quantification of benefits and analysis of costs and benefits; defined timetable and delivery date; defined asset improvements or changes to operational procedures to deliver the output; and identified costs the reporter has challenged and validated.
Tough call
No one would want this different. The industry’s credibility with the public depends on it. All the same it's a tough call for more innovative and cooperative approaches without a track record. By the time you read this Ofwat will have published its consultation response, the final PR09 methodology. We shall then know more about the prospects for investment plans that promise the right outcomes but offer to deliver them in less familiar but more nature-friendly ways.
Barrie Clarke
A version of this article appears in Water & Wastewater Treatment magazine, April 2008
Notes
Water for Wildlife, www.waterforwildlife.org.uk
Defra, Future Water, February 2008
Natural England, press release, March 2008
Latest news and policy direct to your desktop