Assessment of Member States progress in the implementation of Programmes of Measures during the first planning cycle of the Water Framework Directive

Transcription

1 Assessment of Member States progress in the implementation of Programmes of Measures during the first planning cycle of the Water Framework Directive Member State Report: United Kingdom (UK) Disclaimer: this report was prepared by consultants contracted by the European Commission, and it does not necessarily reflect the views of the Commission. WRc plc 1 of 50 March 2015

2 1. Introduction The Water Framework Directive (WFD) requires that Member States (MS) establish Programmes of Measures to achieve the objectives established under Article 4. Measures are required to reduce the pressures to levels that are compatible with the achievement of the objectives such as the achievement of good water status by Programmes of Measures for the first planning cycle were due to be published in December 2009 and should have been made operational in Member States by December Progress with implementation of the measures was to be reported electronically to the Commission in December 2012 through the Water Information System for Europe (WISE). A preliminary assessment of the 2012 electronic WISE reports was undertaken in 2013 through the use of templates comprising a number of pre-defined questions, the answering of which by consultant Member State assessors provided the assessment of Member States progress. The results were presented to the Commission by the consultants in a Preliminary Assessment report in January The preliminary assessment was taken further by undertaking an in-depth assessment of some key processes in developing programmes of measures and in relation to five key aspects/pressures (agriculture, chemicals, hydromorphology, urban waste water treatment and water abstraction) of the Water Framework Directive. This was again facilitated by the use of pre-defined questions within templates answered by Member State assessors. The results were reported to the Commission in December 2014 as a European Overview report that provided an overview of the progress made by Member States in the development and implementation of programmes of measures for the first planning cycle. It was also based on the conclusions from the Commission s 2012 assessment of the first River Basin Management Plans 1, Member States electronic (WISE) reports to the Commission in December 2012 on the progress with implementation of their programmes of measures (summarised in the Preliminary Assessment report) and the information arising from the Commission s bilateral meetings with Member States on their first River Basin Management Plans during 2013 and The report was used in support of the Commission s Communication to the European Parliament and Council on progress with Water Framework Directive implementation and its associated Commission Staff Working Document, both to be published in March This report is a summary of the findings of the preliminary and in-depth assessment of the progress with the implementation of the programmes of measures in the United Kingdom. References to River Basin Management Plans (RBMPs) and programmes of measures (PoMs) throughout this document relate to the first planning cycle unless explicitly stated otherwise. 1 WRc plc 2 of 50 March 2015

3 2. Questions used in the assessments For the preliminary assessment the following assessment questions were asked: Question 1. What is the reported progress between 2009 and 2012 with the implementation of the Basic Measures set out in Article 11.3.a? Question 2. What is the reported progress between 2009 and 2012 with the implementation of the Other Basic Measures set out in Article 11.3b-I? Question 3. What is the progress with the implementation of Supplementary Measures between 2009 and 2012? Question 4. Are there Supplementary Measures in place to tackle each of the significant pressures for which Basic Measures are reported by Member States to be not enough to achieve WFD objectives? Which pressures are not tackled? Question 5. Which measures reported to be implemented in the first RBMP/PoM in 2009 have not been reported in 2012? Question 6. What is the status of implementation of the Key Types of Measures identified in the Member State, and what progress is expected over the duration of the first RBMP? Question 8. What is the reported overall progress on implementing the Programme of Measures? Are there differences between the RBDs in the Member State? What are the main obstacles to successful implementation (if any)? o o o o 8a) What are the main achievements? 8b) Improvements in status of water bodies? 8c) What are the main obstacles? 8d) Overall Progress? Question 9. How are the measures being financed? What are the main achievements, progress and obstacles in securing the budget for the PoMs? o o o 9a) Securing finance for the PoMs? 9b) Funding source? 9c) Overall progress? For the in-depth assessment the following assessment questions were asked: Question 1. What are the impacts on water bodies reported for 2009? Question 2. Have the sources of the impacts been identified? WRc plc 3 of 50 March 2015

4 Question 3. If the sources of at least some of the impacts were identified, please indicate the relevant sources and pressures in the Excel spreadsheet provided in the document area to answer this question Question 4. Have the identified impacts been apportioned between the sources and sectors/drivers responsible for the pressures? Question 4a. Are there different approaches to source apportionment between the RBDs within the MS? Question 5. If no source apportionment was undertaken, how were measures assigned to the sectors to reduce pressures? Question 6. How were the measures assigned across the polluters and activities/sectors responsible for the impacts? Question 7a. Has the scale of the pressures arising from agriculture been quantified in terms of the reductions required to achieve WFD objectives? Question 7b. How much of the gap to the achievement of WFD objectives was expected to be achieved by the Nitrates Action Programmes? Question 7c. How much of the gap to the achievement of WFD objectives was expected to be achieved by the implementation of Article 11.3.h basic measures? Question 7d. How much of the gap to the achievement of WFD objectives was expected to be achieved by the implementation of Article 11.3.g basic measures? Question 7e. How much of the gap to the achievement of WFD objectives was expected to be achieved by the implementation of Article 11.4 supplementary measures? Question 8a. Has the scale of the pressures arising from emissions, discharges and losses of chemicals been quantified in terms of the reductions required to achieve WFD objectives? Question 8b. How much of the gap to the achievement of WFD objectives was expected to be achieved by the Basic Measures required by Article 11.3.a (measures required by the IPPC Directive (96/61/EC and 2008/1/EC) which was superseded by the Industrial Emissions Directive (2010/75/EU) on 7 January 2014)? Question 8c. How much of the gap to the achievement of WFD objectives was expected to be achieved by the implementation of Article 11.3.g and Article 11.3.k basic measures? Question 8d. What measures are in place to address the related objectives under the Environmental Quality Standards Directive (2008/105/EC)? o o o o Is there an inventory of the sources of chemical pollution? Are mixing zones being used? If mixing zones are used, does the plan indicate measures taken to reduce the extent of the mixing zone in the future? Are there specific measures with the aim of progressively reducing pollution from priority substances? WRc plc 4 of 50 March 2015

5 o Are there specific measures with the aim of ceasing or phasing out emissions, discharges and losses of priority hazardous substances? Question 8e. How much of the gap to the achievement of WFD objectives was expected to be achieved by the implementation of Article 11.4 supplementary measures? Question 9a. Has the scale of hydromorphological pressures been quantified in terms of the reductions required to achieve WFD objectives? Question 9b. How much of the gap to the achievement of WFD objectives was expected to be achieved by the Basic Measures required by Article 11.3.a? Question 9c. How much of the gap to the achievement of WFD objectives was expected to be achieved by the implementation of Article 11.3.i basic measures? Question 9d. How much of the gap to the achievement of WFD objectives was expected to be achieved by the implementation of Article 11.4 supplementary measures? Question 10a. Has the scale of the pressures arising from urban waste water treatment been quantified in terms of the reductions required to achieve WFD objectives? Question 10b. How much of the gap to the achievement of WFD objectives was expected to be achieved by the national programmes for the implementation of the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive? Question 10c. How much of the gap to the achievement of WFD objectives was expected to be achieved by the implementation of Article 11.3.g basic measures? Question 10d. How much of the gap to the achievement of WFD objectives was expected to be achieved by the implementation of Article 11.4 supplementary measures? Question 11a. Has the scale of the pressures arising from water abstraction been quantified in terms of the reductions required to achieve WFD objectives? Question 11b. How much of the gap to the achievement of WFD objectives was expected to be achieved by the Basic Measures required by Article 11.3.a? Question 11c. How much of the gap to the achievement of WFD objectives was expected to be achieved by the implementation of Article 11.3.c and 11.3.e basic measures? Question 11d. How much of the gap to the achievement of WFD objectives was expected to be achieved by the implementation of Article 11.4 supplementary measures? Question 12a. Was a cost effectiveness analysis undertaken during the development of the programme of measures? Question 12b. Did the cost effectiveness analysis influence the selection of measures? Question 12c. What were the main factors that limited the use of a cost effectiveness analysis? Question 13. What are the effects/consequences of uncertainty in the Article 5 pressures and impacts analysis, monitoring and classification of status on targeting of measures to reduce pressures to achieve WFD objectives? Question 14. What are the main changes and improvements envisaged for the second planning cycle? WRc plc 5 of 50 March 2015

6 3. Contextual information on the United Kingdom There are 15 River Basin Districts (RBD) in the main part of the UK with three administratively distinct regions: England and Wales (E&W); Scotland; and, Northern Ireland (NI). There are differences in approaches in all three regions. RBD UK02 (Solway Tweed) is shared between the Scotland and England and Wales competent authorities and there is a hybrid approach with a combination of both approaches in the respective Scottish and English parts of the RBD. In terms of surface waters, all RBDs report some water bodies to be subject to significant pressures from point sources, diffuse sources, abstraction, hydromorphological alterations and 'other' pressures. All RBDs except UK01 (Scotland) and the 3 NI RBDs are also subject to river management pressures. Pressures from the management of transitional and coastal waters (TRAC) are only reported for the south west RBD in England (UK08) and other morphological pressures from eight RBDs. In terms of ecological status in 2009 in the UK as a whole, 41.3% of surface water bodies were reported to be good or better status in 2009 which was expected to increase by 8.8% to 50.1% by In 2009, 41.4% of natural surface water bodies were at good chemical status and this was expected to increase to 41.5% by In terms of groundwater, all RBDs were reported to be subject to significant diffuse source pollution, all except the three NI RBDs to point source pressures, and all except one RBD in NI to abstraction pressures. Saltwater intrusion pressures are reported to be significant in 10 RBDs. In the UK as a whole, 73.7% of groundwater bodies were reported to be at good chemical status in 2009, increasing to 79.3 % by 2015, and 79.2 % at good quantitative status in 2009 increasing to 80.2% by WRc plc 6 of 50 March 2015

7 4. Role of basic measures and supplementary measures Article 11.3 of the WFD states that basic measures are the minimum requirements to be complied with and shall consist of 2 : Paragraph a: those measures required to implement Community legislation for the protection of water, including measures required under the legislation specified in Article 10 and in part A of Annex VI (e.g. measures to achieve compliance with the Nitrates Directive and Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive) Paragraphs b to l: measures that largely require binding rules in terms of, for example, the control of abstractions (paragraph e) (e.g. requires abstraction permits to be revised in line with WFD requirements), diffuse sources (paragraph h) (e.g. where phosphate, pesticides, sediment, organic pollution and ammonia from agriculture are identified as a pressure affecting the achievement of overall good status, controls must be established), and activities that affect hydromorphological conditions (paragraph i) (e.g. controls should be defined to ensure that actions in or near rivers do not negatively impact on morphological condition) that go beyond the national implementation of Article 11.3.a measures for the achievement of WFD objectives. In certain situations basic measures alone will not be sufficient to achieve good status and so Article 11.4 supplementary measures may be needed. MS must first have basic measures that are compliant with Article 11.3 and second define supplementary measures and have a credible plan for securing and tracking progress on the established supplementary measures. Supplementary measures can be, for example, technical measures, advisory services or cooperative agreements between groups of stakeholders (see WFD Annex VI.B). Basic and supplementary measures must add up to what is needed to address the pressures to allow the achievement of the WFD objectives. 2 Meeting of the Strategic Co-ordination Group, 4 November 2013, Agenda point 4.a. Clarification on WFD programmes of measures (Article 11). WRc plc 7 of 50 March 2015

8 5. Targeting of measures to reduce pressures and impacts to achieve WFD objectives Measures should be targeted in terms of their type and extent to ensure that pressures are addressed and that this will deliver improvements towards achieving good status or potential in the individual water bodies (WB). The measures should be designed based on the assessment of the actual status of the water body, supplemented with the information from the analysis of pressures and impacts affecting the water body. In terms of the objective of achieving good status by 2015, the aim would be to identify the gap in water body status/potential expected by 2015 and the status required by the Water Framework Directive. How large the gap that must be filled to achieve WFD objectives in any particular River Basin District and Member State will depend, for example, on how Member States have implemented the requirements under other Directives (e.g. the relative stringency of measures in national Nitrates Action Plans) and policies, as well as differences in the type, extent and magnitude of pressures on water bodies. The gap should be filled with measures that would be implemented under the Water Framework Directive for those water bodies expected to be failing objectives in 2015 without exemptions. The gap to the achievement of objectives will be caused by significant pressures on water bodies: the sources and sectors responsible will have to be identified to determine where actions on the ground are needed to reduce pressures to levels in/on water bodies compatible with the achievement of objectives. This may be achieved through the use of source apportionment to give a clear picture of the most important sources for a given pressure or impact. In this context a source might be considered as a combination of a pressure type (e.g. diffuse or point source pollution combined with the responsible sector or driver (e.g. diffuse agriculture, diffuse forestry)). The required reduction of the pressures to fill the gap to the achievement of objectives should then be quantified: this can be expressed in different ways depending on the nature of the pressure. For example: for nutrient pollution it could be in terms of the required reduction in the loads of nitrogen and phosphorus in the receiving water bodies; for pressures arising from the hydromorphological alteration of water bodies it could be expressed as number of barriers that have conditions not compatible with the achievement of Water Framework Directive objectives; and, for water abstractions the volume of water abstracted or diverted that has to be reduced to achieve objectives. Apportionment of impacts and pressures to sources As described above source apportionment information is required so that measures can be targeted effectively at sources to reduce the pressures to levels compatible with the achievement of WFD objectives. In the UK a quantitative source apportionment was undertaken for some impacts and their main pressures, for other pressures a more qualitative apportionment was performed where sources were identified but their relative contribution to impacts and pressures on water bodies were not assessed or quantified. There were also differences between the 3 regions in the UK. In England and Wales there is a reasons for failure database that holds information on which sectors are responsible for which pressures. However, the information is not split between diffuse and point sources for some of the pressures e.g. agriculture. The table also indicates that the sources of some pressures causing failures is not known and under investigation. One of the Annexes (G) to each of the RBMPs in each of the England and Wales RBDs has the results of the Article 5 analysis which has in some cases WRc plc 8 of 50 March 2015

9 been updated since 2005, has an indication of the sectors/pressures responsible for the risk to the achievement of WFD objectives. The main information on source apportionment in Scotland arises from the Article 5 report published in 2005 where there is a description of the process used. For each water body at risk (of failing objectives) the nature of the pressure and whether a pressure was considered to be a primary or contributory was recorded. Expert judgement was used to determine whether a pressure was a primary or contributory pressure. Limitations of the method were recognised and where possible a screening method was used based on a suite of models particularly in the case of diffuse pollution. There was no additional information in the RBMP and supporting documents on whether this approach was modified when developing the programme of measures later in the planning process. There was limited information from Northern Ireland with the main source being the Article 5 report from Section 7 of the RBMP lists the key sectors contributing to each pressure type but there is no indication that a quantitative apportionment has been undertaken in terms of the WBs affected or the relative scale of the pressure each source represents. Approaches of assigning measures to sectors/sources to reduce pressures In England and Wales (E&W) RBMPs, it was stated that for many diffuse sources the detailed knowledge of sources and pathways was too uncertain to know what measures would be feasible and effective, particularly at a detailed site specific level. For this reason, the measures in the E&W RBMPs tended to focus on actions planned for other drivers (e.g. point sources from heavily regulated sectors such as the water industry), national measures, and locally targeted actions to control pollution. In terms of diffuse sources, measures and actions included pollution prevention through local education campaigns; voluntary initiatives and the adoption of best practice methodologies; enforcement action and use of antipollution works notices; policies on development planning; cross-compliance with Nitrates and Sludge Directives (Nitrate vulnerable zones now cover some 70 per cent of England and 3.6 per cent of Wales); the Silage, Slurry and Agricultural Fuel Oil Regulations; the Groundwater Directive; Existing and enhanced Agrienvironment schemes; Codes of Good Agricultural Practice; rectifying misconnections of foul sewer to surface water drains. Assigning measures across the polluters and activities/sectors responsible for the impacts In the UK measures were largely focused on sectors where measures were considered to be most costeffective. It is stated in the RBMPs for E&W that the planned measures are those that could be justified at the time. Models and expert judgement were used to estimate the outcomes in terms of the future status the measures were expected to achieve. The approach to the application of measures to tackle significant pressures was described in Annex E (Actions appraisal and justifying objectives) to the RBMPs in England and Wales. Details on selecting and appraising measures indicates that the gap between the improvements resulting from new and existing (non-wfd driven) measures and any new national or targeted RBD measures driven by the WFD and the achievement of WFD default objectives in each water body had been identified. Any remaining gap would be filled by local WFD driven measures. This implies that an assessment was undertaken on how much of the gap would be filled by Article 11.3.a basic measures, Article 11.3b to l basic measures and Article 11.4 supplementary measures, respectively. However, such an assessment has not been found or reported. The process of appraising measures was also different between the different types of pressures: see the separate Topic sections of this summary. A large proportion of the measures proposed in England and Wales to tackle agricultural pressures were reported to be voluntary, rather than statutory (COM s 2012 MS WRc plc 9 of 50 March 2015

10 Annex), reflecting the statement in Annex E that for many diffuse sources the detail of sources and pathways are too uncertain to know what measures would be feasible and effective, particularly at a detailed site specific level. The actual application and selection of measures has been made on an assessment of the how certain it was that a water body is actually failing WFD objectives, the certainty in the identification of the pollutants pathways and responsible sources, and the effectiveness of available measures. Where there was deemed to be not enough or acceptable certainty, alternative objectives (exemptions) were set and the need for further investigations (to improve certainly in these aspects) were established. A justification given was that applying measures with only weak certainty that are appropriately targeted would risk wasted investment. In terms of physicochemical quality elements such as ammonia, dissolved oxygen, acidity and nutrients, in England and Wales, mathematical models were used to calculate what regulatory action was required to protect water quality, for example permit conditions for discharges. Environmental Quality Standards (EQSs) have been established for each chemical quality element (QE). It was stated that compliance with the water quality standards should ensure the associated biological status was met. However it is also stated that the ability to estimate the relative importance of pollution sources following improvement actions to all or some of them gives considerable uncertainty about where future measures might need to be targeted. Where sources, pathways and responsible parties cannot be identified with sufficient confidence, further investigations were indicated as being needed. These will include local investigations as well as national projects, such as those on source apportionment. In the Northern Ireland RBDs environmental objectives were set on a water body by water body basis for all surface water bodies and groundwater bodies. The objectives were based on a judgement of the status that a water body can be expected to achieve for each six-year planning cycle, from 2009 to This involved an assessment of the adverse impacts that are causing the deterioration in water status, the gap that exists between the current status and the target objective, how far that gap can be closed by existing and/or additional measures and the timescale that would be required, with such measures, to deliver good status or an alternative objective. The initial objectives that were generated on the basis of the planning assumptions applied were subject to scrutiny and peer review by scientific and technical staff involved in the monitoring and assessment of water quality in Northern Ireland, through a series of workshops. The workshops covered each Catchment Stakeholder Group Area and reviewed the pressures affecting water quality on a water body by water body basis using technical and scientific expertise, local knowledge of the impacts in the areas and an understanding of what current and future measures were likely to achieve in the water bodies. The anticipated improvements in status were based on judgements about what can be achieved given the regulatory and voluntary measures that were available at the time to secure improvements in the water environment. In particular what could be achieved by the existing legislation and Directives, and what further improvement could be achieved by additional planned and/or supplementary measures. There is little information from NI on the process of apportioning pressures/impacts to sectors in relation to establishing measures and on how effective they were expected to be in reducing pressures to achieve objectives. The only pertinent information found was that in the Article 5 report: A water body can have more than one primary pressure. We have used expert judgement to determine whether a pressure is a primary or contributory one. This information will be useful when we come to establish the programme of measures. In Scotland it is also stated that in making decisions on the objectives they set for Scottish Water and on the measures they introduce to address diffuse agricultural pollution, Ministers will take into account the relative contributions to the failure of the standards and the relative costs of reducing those contributions. Source: Implementing the Water Environment and Water Services (Scotland) Act 2003: Principles for Setting Objectives for the River Basin Management Plan Policy Statement, March WRc plc 10 of 50 March 2015

11 Cost effectiveness Cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) is an appraisal technique that provides a ranking of alternative measures on the basis of their costs and effectiveness, where the most cost-effective has the highest ranking. Uncertainty on costs, effectiveness and time-lagged effects of measures needs to be dealt with throughout the economic analysis process associated with the WFD, and more generally throughout the process of identifying measures and developing the RBMP. Sources of uncertainty are highly diverse according to situations and river basins, but will exist with regards to the assessment of pressures, impacts, baseline, costs or measures effectiveness. It is important that key areas of uncertainty and key assumptions made for the analysis are clearly spelt out and reported alongside the results of the analysis. In the UK it appears that a cost-effectiveness analysis has been undertaken for measures for all significant pressures. Decisions on the cost-effectiveness of measures for the first programmes of measures was based on a national preliminary cost-effectiveness analysis exercise completed in 2007 under the UK Collaborative Research Programme. The analysis was undertaken by working groups that were based on key industry and business sectors. The groups were tasked with agreeing combinations of measures for addressing pressures on water bodies attributable to the sectors concerned, and providing high level analysis on the cost and effectiveness of these measures. The work concluded that given the uncertainties associated with classification, source apportionment and the effectiveness of measures, a longer term adaptive approach to river basin management planning would ultimately be more effective and costeffective than an unphased approach, given the then state of knowledge. The research included all Competent Authorities in the UK, and it is assumed that the results were used in all 3 regions in the UK when developing their PoMs. The Collaborative Research Programme also undertook a national benefits survey to estimate the monetary benefits for use in the assessment of disproportionate costs and cost-effectiveness. In the UK the factors limiting the use of cost-effectiveness analysis in the first programmes of measures included: a lack of information on the environmental effectiveness of some measures in terms of reducing pressures and improving water body status for some pressures; lack of information on the regulatory effectiveness of some measures in terms of reducing pressures and improving water body status for some pressures; and, lack of information on the costs of measures for some pressures. For example, in England and Wales: for many of the diffuse sources the knowledge of the detail of sources and pathways was too uncertain to know what measures would be feasible and effective, particularly at a detailed site specific level. For this reason, the measures included in the first RBMPs in E&W focused on actions planned for other drivers, national measures and locally targeted actions to control pollution. No information on the factors limiting a cost-effectiveness analysis was found for Northern Ireland and Scotland. Assessment of Disproportionate costs An extended time to the achievement of objectives or less stringent objectives can be justified on the grounds of disproportionately expensive measures (Articles 4.4 and 4.5). The argument of disproportionate costs was extensively used in the Scotland and E&W RBMPs (but not in NI) in applying exemptions to the achievement of WFD objectives. Disproportionate burdens were determined where a measure was considered to be: (a) unaffordable to implement within a particular timetable without creating disproportionate burdens for particular sectors or parts of society; or (b) the only solution would be significantly at odds with the polluter pays principle. Annex E of the E&W plans also stated that the polluter pays principle is the central tenet of the Directive and where benefits are produced WRc plc 11 of 50 March 2015

12 of similar importance it is the beneficiary pays principle. Only when action is not financeable through these principles should resort be made to public budgets. The same Annex to the RBMPs for England and Wales also quotes the Common Implementation Strategy (CIS) guidance on the use of exemptions where it is stated that disproportionality is a political judgement, informed by economic information, and an analysis of the costs and benefits of measures necessary to make a decision on exemptions. It is also stated that the principles set out in the CIS document on the approach to disproportionate costs have been used in its use of exemptions. These principles include: disproportionality should not begin at the point where measured costs simply exceed quantifiable benefits; the assessment of costs and benefits will have to include qualitative costs and benefits as well as quantitative; the margin by which costs exceed benefits should be appreciable and have a high level of confidence; in the context of disproportionality the decision-maker may also want to take into consideration the ability to pay of those affected by the measures and some information on this may be required. The application of the last principle implies a political decision has been applied in this context perhaps leading to the burden of measures and costs being focused on the pressures arising from the water industry in the first plans rather than other significant polluters such as agriculture. Effects of uncertainties Measures should be targeted in terms of their type and extent to ensure that pressures are tackled and reduced, and that this will deliver improvements towards achieving good status or potential in the individual water bodies. The measures should be designed based on the assessment of the actual status of the water body, supplemented with the information from the analysis of pressures and impacts affecting the water body. Therefore, uncertainty in the robustness and suitability of methods used in the Article 5 analysis of pressures and impacts, and/or in the confidence of the results of monitoring and the subsequent assessment of ecological and chemical status can fundamentally affect how measures are targeted at water bodies at risk of failing objectives or those that are assessed as being at less than good status from all significant pressures in a RBD. In terms of the effects of uncertainties on the selection of measures, in the UK (E&W) measures were targeted only on water bodies with well quantified pressures and were at risk of, or were failing, objectives with a defined level of confidence in their status. The RBMPs in E&W stated that the management of uncertainty played a large part in the first cycle of river basin management plans as more monitoring data and evidence was gathered to establish the cause of water quality failures, or in order to develop the most cost-effective solution. Uncertainty was taken into account in setting objectives and deciding on the appropriate action to take for water bodies. As a result many of the actions in the first plans were for undertaking further investigations and the collection of new monitoring data to reduce the uncertainties in the future. Also in some cases, even though the source of pollution was known in broad terms, the responsible specific sources and the pollution pathways to the affected water bodies were not sufficiently defined to effectively target measures. Examples given included diffuse source pollution from urban areas or from the agricultural sector, comprising many individually small contributory pollution sources. Further investigations to be undertaken included local investigations as well as national projects, such as those on source apportionment. In Scotland (and also in England and Wales) the confidence in the classification of the status of water bodies has been taken into account in identifying measures and priorities for improvement. Confidence in classification depends on the amount of monitoring information available; whether the water body is close to a class boundary or not; and the natural variability of the quality elements that have been assessed. To ensure investment in measures was not wasted on water bodies that subsequently turn out to have been at WRc plc 12 of 50 March 2015

13 good status, the confidence in classification results in prioritising the water bodies for which action will be taken in the period up to 2015 was taken into account. No information on how uncertainties affected the development of programmes of measures in Northern Ireland was found. WRc plc 13 of 50 March 2015

14 6. Progress with the implementation of the Basic Measures set out in Article 11.3.a All basic measures were reported as being implemented in all UK RBDs. Generally there was no information reported on the contribution that the implementation of basic measures makes to the achievement of WFD objectives. For the Habitats and Birds Directives the measures put in place in 2009 were to achieve compliance with WFD particularly to address pressures on priority water dependent habitats. There was information reported on progress with these measures in In terms of drinking water protected areas and groundwater safeguard zones it is indicated that there will be further work on reducing pollution in the second river basin planning cycle. In terms of the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive (UWWTD), it is implied that there will be further improvement in discharge quality over the whole first planning cycle. The transposition of the Sustainable Use of Pesticides Directive into UK law in 2012 could also indicate that any new measures under the regulations may also lead to further progress in reducing the impact of pesticides. The revision of the Nitrate Vulnerable Zones (NVZs) and action plans under the Nitrates Directive will begin in 2013 which might entail more stringent actions with potential further progress to Progress between 2009 and 2012 is also indicated in England and Wales in terms of completion of improvement plans for some Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC) regulated emissions, and in Scotland it is indicated that further reduction in emission limits might be required. WRc plc 14 of 50 March 2015

15 7. Progress with the implementation of Basic Measures set out in Article 11.3b-I Reported progress Figure 7.1 Reported progress with implementation of basic measures (Article 11.3 (b) to (l) in 2012) (PoM aggregation report) SurfacePrioritySubstances RechargeAugmentationGroundwaters ProtectionWaterAbstraction PollutantsDirectGroundwater PollutantsDiffuse PointSourceDischarges EfficientWaterUse CostRecoveryWaterServices ControlsWaterAbstraction Not started Ongoing Completed Not reported Not relevant AdverseImpact AccidentalPollution Number of RBDs Source: WISE PoMs Aggregation Report Implementation of Other Basic Measures in 2012 In 2012 all of the other basic measures were completed in England and Wales (E&W) and Scotland but were reported as ongoing in NI. Generally there was little explicit information on what progress has been made between 2009 and 2012 and what might be expected in the next three years. In terms of Article 9 requirements it appears that domestic users of water are still not charged according to usage whereas in agriculture and industry users are. For E&W it was indicated that the requirements of the Groundwater Directive were incorporated in new Environmental Permitting Regulations in 2010 but there was no information of the expected positive effect this would have in terms of meeting WFD objectives. Continued progress within the last three years of the RBMPs would also be expected in NI, where inventories of Priority Substances and Priority Hazardous Substances are to be established, monitoring is to be undertaken and, where necessary, pollution reduction plans are to be implemented to phase out or reduce emissions of these substances. Delays in implementation Member States were asked to report if there were substantial delays in the implementation of basic measures required under Article b to l. There were no reported delays of Article 11.3 (b to l) basic measures in the UK RBDs. WRc plc 15 of 50 March 2015

16 Financing of measures Member States were asked to report on the source of EU funds for the financing of Article 11.3.b to l basic measures. For most (96%) measures in the UK, non-eu funds were used to finance these measures with rural development and Life+ EU funds being used for 3.6% and 1.2% of measures, respectively. WRc plc 16 of 50 March 2015

17 8. Supplementary measures (Article 11.4) The need for supplementary measures Supplementary Measures are those measures designed and implemented in addition to the Basic Measures where they are necessary to achieve the environmental objectives of the WFD as established in Article 4 and Annex V. Supplementary Measures can include additional legislative powers, fiscal measures, research or educational campaigns that go beyond the Basic Measures and are deemed necessary for the achievement of objectives. In 2010, Member States reported details of the Supplementary Measures planned (in 2009) to tackle significant pressures on surface and ground waters where Basic Measures were not enough to meet WFD environmental objectives. Details of the measures were reported in a List of Supplementary Measures specific to each RBD. Each Supplementary Measure was to be reported with a national code. In some Member States, national codes and measures may be common to more than one RBD, whereas in others the same measure may have a different code in each RBD. Therefore, the number of different measures used at a national level does not necessarily equate to the sum of the different measures used in the component RBDs. Also, the same Supplementary Measure may be applicable to more than one pressure type. Member States were asked to report which Supplementary Measures were used to tackle specific pressures (at an aggregated and/or disaggregated level) when Basic Measures were not enough: these are indicative of those that have been applied or planned in There are also examples of where not all Supplementary Measures in the List of Supplementary Measures are reported to be used or planned in In 2012, Member States reported some additional aspects on Supplementary Measures including their state of implementation ( not started, on-going or completed ), whether their implementation was substantially delayed and, if so, the reasons for the delay. WRc plc 17 of 50 March 2015

18 Figure 8.1 Number of sub-units within the Member State (UK) where basic measures are enough (Yes) or not enough (No) to tackle significant pressures on surface water bodies (22 subunits reported in the UK). Source: WISE PoM reports 1 Point Source 2 Diffuse Source 3 Water Abstraction 4 Water flow regulations and morphological alterations of surface water 5 River management 6 Transitional and coastal water management Yes No 7 Other morphological alterations 8 Other Pressures Number of sub-units Figure 8.2 Number of river basin districts within the Member State (UK) where basic measures are enough (Yes) or not enough (No) to tackle significant pressures on ground water bodies. 15 RBDs reported in the UK. Source: WISE PoM reports 1 Point Sources 2 Diffuse Sources 3 Abstraction 4 Artificial Recharge 5 Saltwater Intrusion Yes No 6 Other Pressures Number of RBDs WRc plc 18 of 50 March 2015

19 Progress with the implementation of Supplementary Measures between 2009 and 2012 Surface Waters Figure 8.3 State of implementation of supplementary measures in relation to significant pressures of surface waters in 2012 Point sources(298) Diffuse sources(3431) Water Abstraction(683) Water flow regulations and morphological alterations (166) River management(1152) Transitional and coastal water management(78) Not started On-going Completed Other morphological alterations(159) Other pressures(1042) 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% % of measures Number in brackets is the number of supplementary measures tackling the pressure. Note: a measure may tackle more than one pressure. Source: WISE PoMs Reports WRc plc 19 of 50 March 2015

20 Groundwater Figure 8.4 State of implementation of supplementary measures in relation to significant pressures on ground waters in 2012 Point Sources(97) Diffuse Sources(606) Abstraction(247) Artificial Recharge(1) Saltwater Intrusion(14) Not Started On-going Completed Other Pressures() 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% % of measures Number in brackets is the number of supplementary measures tackling the pressure. Note: a measure may tackle more than one pressure For the UK as a whole, some 2,240 supplementary measures were reported of which 1,760 (79%) were reported to be completed, 432 (19%) as ongoing and 48 (2%) as not started. However, this number does not necessarily reflect the total number of different measures in the UK as national coding of measures was not necessarily used. For example in the 10 RBDs solely incorporating England and Wales, measures codes were prefixed with the RBD code, meaning that the same measure may have had a different code in different RBDs. In short there may have been double-counting of the same measure. For example, 2,179 measures with different codes were reported in the compiled UK List of Supplementary Measures in 2009/10. An examination of the description of the measures indicates that around 50% of the measures were replicated because the same measures were coded differently in more than one RBD. The largest proportion of measures not started was in UK08 where 27 (12%) of the 226 measures were not started, and the smallest in UK03 and UK01 where all had been started. In terms of regional differences, generally more measures were reported for the 11 RBDs incorporating England and Wales (from 109 in UK10 to 255 in UK05). In contrast only 11 were reported for Scotland RBD (UK01). In terms of significant pressures (aggregated for all surface water categories and groundwater), at the UK level the most measures were applied to diffuse source pressures (920, or 36%) and the fewest (72, or 3%) to transitional and coastal water management pressures. The same measure was often applied to more than one pressure. The pressures for which the most supplementary measures were completed were for diffuse sources (88%) and point sources (86%), and the least for water flow regulation and morphological alteration pressures (69%). For water abstraction, water flow regulation, other morphological pressures and other pressures over a fifth of the supplementary measures were ongoing. The largest proportion (6%) of not started measures was for river management pressures. Three measures were reported to have substantial delays all in NI relating to pollution reduction programmes for Priority Substances (PS) and Priority Hazardous Substances (PHS) requiring the development of a pollution inventory; to quantifying the extent of diffuse pollution requiring the development of suitable models; and, to the development of biological tools to assess the ecological impacts of changes in hydrology from abstraction and flow regulation activities. WRc plc 20 of 50 March 2015

21 Delays in implementation As with Article 11.3 b to l basic measures, Member States were asked to report whether there was a substantial delay in implementing supplementary measures included in the first RBMPs in 2009, and to explain any such delays. In the UK, 12.5% of (the 2240) supplementary measures were reported to be delayed because further investigative/research work was required. Other reasons given were technical barriers (0.5% of measures), regulatory barriers (0.3%) and because the planned measures were no longer needed (0.1%). Financing of supplementary measures Member States were also asked to report on the source of EU funds for the financing of supplementary measures. As for Article 11.3.b to l basic measures, non-eu funds (97%) were mostly used to finance supplementary measures in the UK, with EU structural funds, rural development and Life+ funds financing 2%, 1% and 0.2%, respectively, of measures. Supplementary Measures in place to tackle each of the significant pressures for which Basic Measures are not enough to achieve WFD objectives A comparison was made at the RBD level on the pressures (reported at an aggregated level) where basic measures were reported in 2009/2010 as not being enough to meet WFD environmental objectives in each water category, against the number of supplementary measures reported in 2012 to be used in terms of each pressure (a mixture of aggregated and disaggregated pressures, reported in 2009). The pressure associated with each supplementary measure used in 2012 was obtained by linking the supplementary measure codes reported in 2009 and Where no failures were reported for a water category in 2009 it was assumed that no supplementary measures would be required in that category. In almost all cases supplementary measures were associated with water categories and pressures for which basic measures were not enough. There were also many examples where measures were reported for categories and pressures where no reported objective failures were reported. The only examples of where no supplementary measures were reported when expected were for the Scotland RBD where some coastal water, lake and transitional water bodies were failing objectives and where basic measures were not considered to be enough in terms of point source pressures. Also for the same RBD, no supplementary measures were reported for groundwater bodies in terms of point and diffuse source pressures. Also for UKGBNINE no supplementary measures were reported for point source, diffuse source and abstraction pressures in all surface water categories. This however may be the case of mis-reporting as 100% failures were reported for each surface water category and for each aggregated pressure type in each of the three NI RBDs. There was also no reported information for the NI RBDs on groundwater pressures or measures. None of the supplementary measures (as identified by measure codes) reported in 2009 were missing from those reported in Although there were 56 differently coded measures reported in 2012 that were not reported in 2009, when checked against the codes reported in the list of all supplementary measures in 2009, none were in fact missing. However, the 56 codes were not reported in the specific SW and GW lists of supplementary measures in It is not clear why this is the case. WRc plc 21 of 50 March 2015

22 9. Reporting of Key Types of Measures In 2012, Member States were asked to report on 16 defined Key Types of Measures (KTM). These were expected to incorporate Article 11.3 (b to l) basic measures and supplementary measures. Their implementation and completion were expected to deliver the bulk of the actions required to achieve WFD objectives, i.e. to reduce significant pressures to the extent required to achieve good status or to prevent deterioration of status in high and good status water bodies. The defined KTMs were: 1 Construction or upgrades of wastewater treatment plants beyond the requirements of the Directive on Urban Waste Water Treatment; 2 Reduce nutrient pollution in agriculture beyond the requirements of the Nitrates Directive; 3 Reduce pesticides pollution in agriculture; 4 Remediation of contaminated sites (historical pollution including sediments, groundwater, soil); 5 Improving longitudinal continuity (e.g. establishing fish passes, demolishing old dams); 6 Improving hydromorphological conditions of water bodies other than longitudinal continuity; 7 Improvements in flow regime and/or establishment of minimum ecological flow; 8 Water efficiency measures for irrigation (technical measures); 9 Progress in water pricing policy measures for the implementation of the recovery of cost of water services from households; 10 Progress in water pricing policy measures for the implementation of the recovery of cost of water services from industry; 11 Progress in water pricing policy measures for the implementation of the recovery of cost of water services from agriculture; 12 Advisory services for agriculture; 13 Drinking water protection measures (e.g. establishment of safeguard zones, buffer zones etc.); 14 Research, improvement of knowledge base reducing uncertainty; 15 Measures for the phasing-out of emissions, discharges and losses of priority hazardous substances or for the reduction of emissions, discharges and losses of priority substances; 16 Upgrades or improvements of industrial wastewater treatment plants (including farms) beyond the requirements of the Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC) Directive. Member States also were given the possibility to report different or additional KTMs according to their specific situations and requirements. Quantitative indicators for the scale and progress with the implementation of measures were proposed for each of the defined Key Types of Measure. Member States could also report their own indicators if the proposed ones were not appropriate for their specific national situations. WRc plc 22 of 50 March 2015