The EU Water Framework Directive

Transcription

1 The EU Water Framework Directive Why is it important to the recreational boating industry? SEPTEMBER 2004

2 The EU Water Framework Directive: why is it important to the recreational boating industry? The recently implemented EU Water Framework Directive (WFD) applies to all water bodies - including rivers, lakes, coasts and estuaries. Under the terms of the WFD, the Environment Agency (England and Wales) and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) have recently been engaged in a major data collation exercise. This has covered not only data on water quality, but also on activities which have the potential to affect water status - including pollution (diffuse as well as point source), dredging, impoundments, and the introduction of alien species. This data has been used to determine which water bodies are at risk of failing to meet the chemical and biological targets set out in the Directive. Water bodies which are identified as being at risk will be subject to protection and improvement measures to protect and improve the biological, chemical and physical water environment. The Water Framework Directive thus has the potential to affect all aspects of recreational boating - maintenance dredging; - bank protection and weed control; - navigation and vessel movements; - discharges; - diffuse pollution; - abstraction or impoundments. There could also be significant implications for any new development proposals which involve construction or dredging or which require any other form of consent. Both SEPA and the Environment Agency are currently offering stakeholders the chance to review and comment on the outcomes of the initial characterisation process. The attached information notes explain why it is important to take the opportunity to influence the implementation of this far-reaching Directive.

3 The EU Water Framework Directive Information Notes for the Recreational Boating Sector Preamble The EU Water Framework Directive, which became law in the United Kingdom in January 2004, could have some potentially important consequences for the recreational boating sector. This series of information notes has been produced to help those in the sector understand the Directive and its possible implications. Part I of this document provides details about the Water Framework Directive itself, its objectives and its timescales. It also describes the terminology used. Part II of the document endeavours to set out and answer some of the key questions raised by the Directive which are of relevance to recreational boating interests. The implementation of the Water Framework Directive is an ongoing and rapidly evolving process. The information provided in this document draws on the current position and is provided in good faith. However, it is important to be aware that, as work progresses and more information becomes available, interpretation of the Directive may change. The loose-leaf nature of this document has been adopted specifically to enable the notes to be added to or updated as appropriate. If you wish to check the current status of the implementation of certain components of the Directive, or if you require further information, you are encouraged to contact the BMF or RYA offices. NB. This information note has been produced as a draft / prototype. It will be supplemented and developed further as WFD implementation proceeds. The primary purpose of this information note is to introduce you to the WFD and, in particular, the ongoing characterisation process. However, the BMF and RYA would very much welcome any comments you may have on the content, tone and userfriendliness of the document

4 BACKGROUND Part I What is the EU Water Framework Directive? European Directive 2000/60/EC establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy is better known as the EU Water Framework Directive (WFD). The WFD updates and consolidates existing piecemeal EU water legislation. It introduces a new, integrated approach to water protection, improvement and sustainable use. What is the geographic scope of the WFD? Unlike many other EU environmental directives (eg. the Birds and Habitats Directives, the Shellfish Waters Directive) the WFD does not apply only to certain designated sites. It applies to all water bodies, including: - rivers with a catchment area greater than 10 sq km - lakes and other surface water bodies (eg. lochs) with an area greater than 0.5 sq km - estuaries (referred to in the Directive as transitional water bodies ) - coastal waters out to a minimum of 1nm in England and Wales, and out to 3nm in Scotland (but, in both cases, including some very large sea areas - for example, the outer Thames Estuary and the Bristol Channel) - man-made water bodies, including canals, docks, etc. - ground water bodies The WFD introduces a catchment-based approach to water management. Both surface and ground water bodies must be assigned to appropriate river basin districts. River basins which extend beyond the territory of a single Member State need to be assigned to an international river basin district. How has the WFD been transposed into law? By the end of 2003, the WFD had been transposed into law in Great Britain via the following Acts and Regulations: - in England and Wales, the Water Environment (Water Framework Directive) (England and Wales) Regulations in the English-Scottish cross-border catchments, the Water Environment (Water Framework Directive) (Northumbria River Basin District) Regulations 2003 and the Water Environment (Water Framework Directive) (Solway Tweed River Basin District) Regulations in Scotland, the Water Environment and Water Services (Scotland) Act in Northern Ireland, the Water Environment (Water Framework Directive) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2003.

5 Which bodies are responsible for WFD implementation? The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) has overall responsibility for WFD implementation in Great Britain. The Welsh Assembly Government, Scottish Executive, and Department of Environment Northern Ireland oversee implementation in their respective administrations. The WFD requires Member States to identify a competent authority (or competent authorities) responsible for the day-to-day application of the Directive. The Environment Agency is the competent authority in England and Wales. The Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) is the competent authority in Scotland. What are the WFD objectives? The WFD has a wide range of aims and objectives of which the following are potentially of greatest relevance to the recreational boating sector: - to prevent deterioration in the status of water bodies (status is a measure of quality) - to restore water bodies to good status by to reduce pollution from priority substances and to phase out priority hazardous substances - to contribute to mitigating the effects of floods and droughts - to contribute to achieving the objectives for sites protected under other EU legislation in the case of the latter, relevant EU Directives include the Bathing Waters Directive, the Birds and Habitats Directives, the Nitrates Directive, and the Shellfish Waters Directive. When do the WFD objectives need to be achieved? The WFD is frequently referred to as the most important, far-reaching water legislation ever to come out of the EU. It is ambitious in both its scope and its programme. The following table highlights some of the implementation deadlines set out in the Directive which are relevant to the recreational boating sector. Later sections of these information notes aim to explain some of the terminology used in this table and to provide more details about how it is intended that the objectives will be achieved. WFD implementation component WFD deadline Transposition into law in EU Member States End 2003 Characterisation; register of protected areas End 2004 Comprehensive monitoring programme in place End 2006 Preparation of draft river basin management plans End 2008 Publication of final river basin management plans End 2009 Programmes of measures in place End 2012 WFD objectives achieved End 2015

6 DEFINITIONS What does the WFD terminology mean? The WFD introduces a new language to the discipline of water management. It also sets targets which must (in most cases) be achieved by The following table sets out and explains some of the terms used. WFD terminology Characterisation Heavily modified water body (HMWB) Artificial water body (AWB) Ecological status Good ecological status Good ecological potential Good chemical status Derogations River Basin Management Plans (RBMPs) Programmes of measures What it means in practice A process used to identify and assess all water bodies in order to determine the nature of the water body, the ways in which it is affected by human activity, and whether or not it is likely to achieve the targets set by the WFD. Characterisation is dealt with in more detail later in this information note. The WFD recognises that some water bodies have been modified by man to the extent that it will not be possible for them to meet the WFD targets. Water bodies that meet certain criteria set out in the WFD will be designated as heavily modified water bodies and lower targets will be set accordingly. The WFD acknowledges that some water bodies have been created by man (eg. docks, canals, etc.). If no significant water body previously existed, these water bodies will be designated as artificial water bodies and the targets will be set accordingly. The WFD introduces targets which relate to natural (unmodified) biological/ecological characteristics of different types of water body. These characteristics are referred to as ecological status. The target for natural water bodies will be good ecological status. In practice, this means that the ecological target will be a slight reduction in quality when compared to the pristine natural water body. The targets to be set for designated AWBs and HMWBs will reflect the conditions in comparable natural water bodies. However, the target for AWBs and HMWBs will be good ecological potential. This target will be derived from the best ecological condition achievable for that water body, taking into account both the physical modifications which have been made to the water body, and its current use. In addition to ecological targets, all water bodies must achieve good chemical status. Amongst other things, this target reflects the aim set out in the WFD to reduce inputs of priority substances and to phase out completely certain priority hazardous substances. The WFD acknowledges that, for any water body, there may be valid technical, economic or social reasons why the required targets cannot be achieved by It therefore allows less stringent targets - derogations - to be set for such water bodies. The WFD introduces a new, statutory system of river basin management plans. These plans will provide the mechanism for the future management of both water use and of activities affecting water status. The RBMPs will summarise the programmes of measures required to meet the WFD objectives. Measures may be national, regional or local; they may be statutory or non-statutory. Measures will be used to protect and improve the ecological, chemical or hydromorphological (physical) characteristics of water bodies.

7 CHARACTERISATION What does characterisation comprise? Article 5 of the WFD requires Member States to: - analyse the characteristics of each river basin district - review the environmental impact of human activity, and - carry out an economic analysis of water use In addition, by the end of 2004, protected areas will need to be defined and water bodies which are to be provisionally identified as heavily modified or artificial will need to be identified. What does the analysis of river basin district characteristics involve? The WFD requires Member States to identify and delineate large scale river basin districts. There are nine river basin districts (RBDs) in England and Wales and two further cross-border RBDs between England and Scotland. One RBD covers the remainder of Scotland, whilst Northern Ireland shares three international river basin districts with Ireland. Each river basin district comprises a number of individual catchments or river basins. The operational unit of the WFD (ie. the local level at which management measures will be applied) is described as a water body. Monitoring and the associated reporting to Europe (ie. on the progress being made by the UK in achieving the WFD objectives) will be carried out at water body level. Throughout the British Isles, the competent authorities have divided surface and ground waters into water bodies. In Scotland, there are some 3220 surface water bodies; in England and Wales, there are in excess of In addition, hundreds of ground water bodies have been identified. Surface water bodies include rivers, lakes (and lochs), transitional (estuarine), and coastal waters. Each water body is subsequently assigned to a particular type according to its physical and chemical characteristics. This typology is intended to recognise that water body characteristics can vary significantly. For example, a fastflowing upland river will have different plants and animals when compared to a slowflowing lowland river. Similarly, a shallow-water, protected estuary would be expected to have different ecological characteristics to those of a deep-water exposed site. Ground water bodies have been subject to an equivalent characterisation process. Which protected areas are covered by the WFD? Protected areas identified as part of the characterisation exercise include various sites designated under the requirements of other European directives which depend in some way on the protection or improvement of water quality, quantity, etc. Examples include Special Protection Areas (SPA) designated under the EU Birds Directive; Special Areas of Conservation (SAC) designated under the EU Habitats

8 Directive; shellfish waters designated under the terms of the EU Shellfish Waters Directive; bathing waters designated under the EU Bathing Waters Directive, and so on. Waters used for the abstraction of drinking water and nutrient sensitive areas will similarly be amongst those included. Establishing a register of such designated sites will enable future water management to be focused on achieving the relevant protected area objectives. What is involved in the review of the impact of human activity? The review of the impacts of human activity has been carried out using a risk assessment approach. The purpose of the risk assessment is to identify those water bodies which are at risk of failing to meet the 2015 targets of the WFD. Prior to the WFD, water management has tended to focus on pollution pressures. However, the WFD is much broader in its approach and covers a much wider range of indicators. For each water body type (rivers, lakes, coastal and transitional water bodies, and ground waters), a range of pressures has therefore been identified. Chemical, biological and/or physical (hydromorphological) pressures can lead to impacts and thus affect the ability of a water body to achieve good ecological and/or chemical status by There are some differences between the specific pressures deemed likely to affect each water body type, but most fall under the general headings of: point source pollution; diffuse source pollution; abstraction/flow regulation; morphological alterations; and invasive species. By way of an example, the Environment Agency has identified the following pressures as potentially affecting coastal and transitional waters.. - nutrients, hazardous substances, organic enrichment - commercial fishing - abstraction or industrial intakes - alien species, and - hydrological or geomorphological modifications.. and, focussing on the hydrological and geomorphological modification pressure, data has been collated on: - navigation dredging and dredged material disposal - aggregate dredging - commercial fisheries including shellfisheries - impoundments and other forms of flow manipulation - reclamation, and - shoreline structures (flood defences, quay walls, etc.). In order to deliver the so-called pressures and impacts analysis, attempts have been made to identify the following for each pressure: the particular activity or activities responsible and the changes that may be caused; the likely resulting impacts; and the particular receptors which may be affected. Receptors may be biological, hydromorphological and/or chemical.

9 The agencies undertaking the risk assessment work recognise that not all pressures will necessarily lead to impacts, and that attention needs to be paid to this issue accordingly. How are the outputs of the risk assessment presented? Thresholds have been developed as a proxy measure of the likely degree of risk of failing to meet the environmental objectives of the Directive. For hydromorphological pressures, for example, such thresholds may be based on the percentage of the water body affected by a certain modification. For each water body, for each pressure, one of four risk categories will then be assigned: - 1(a): at significant risk - 1(b): probably at significant risk, but more information is needed - 2(a): probably not at significant risk (but again, more information is needed) - 2(b): not at significant risk In some cases, there is not enough readily available data to be able to assign a water body to a risk category. As with the results of the Scottish pressures and impacts assessment, the outputs of the initial Environment Agency risk assessment are briefly described and summarised in map form in the currently available consultation documents (see below). Under the terms of the WFD, the UK must report to the European Commission on the numbers of water bodies at risk of failing to meet the objectives of the Directive by For this purpose, there are only two reporting categories: at risk, or not at risk. How will the results of the risk assessment be used? Any one or more pressures could result in a water body being identified as being at risk of failing to achieve good status. The results of the risk assessment will be used to prioritise monitoring and to identify those water bodies where environmental protection and/or improvement measures will be required. Will the risk assessment outputs be checked or refined? The results of the risk assessment will be very important in determining future decisions about the management and use of each water body. It is therefore essential that the decisions about whether or not water bodies are at risk of failing to achieve good status are well-informed and scientifically robust. The initial characterisation exercise has involved an enormous amount of work and has required access to a huge amount of data, in a very short time. It is acknowledged that additional data and further refinement will help to improve confidence in the risk assessment outputs.

10 The Environment Agency have described their approach to the risk assessment as a two-stage process: an initial fit-for-purpose assessment (Stage I) to be complete by the end of 2004, to be followed by a more detailed refinement analysis (Stage II) planned to take place during the period Stakeholder participation will be vital in ensuring that all available data and relevant information is properly considered in the decision making process. There will be several opportunities to provide information to the agencies undertaking the characterisation work. What about the identification of provisional heavily modified water bodies and artificial water bodies? In parallel to, and drawing on, the risk assessment of morphological pressures, the identification of provisional heavily modified or artificial water bodies (phmwb/awbs) has to be completed by the end of To qualify for designation as HMWB or AWB, water bodies must meet certain criteria. Specifically, it must be shown that: - the water body is not already at good ecological status, and - restoration to GES would have a significant adverse effect on the existing use, and - there is no technically feasible, environmentally better option for achieving the existing use which is not disproportionately costly Under the provisions of the WFD, water bodies which meet these criteria and are designated as HMWBs and AWBs will be subject to (slightly) lower ecological targets than other (ie. natural) water bodies. This is because, for certain water bodies, the extent of use-related physical modification may make it impossible to achieve good ecological status for technical, social, economic and/or financial reasons. The targets for HMWBs and AWBs - referred to as good ecological potential - will therefore take into account the hydromorphological characteristics of the water body relevant to their existing use. As with at risk water bodies, it will therefore be important to ensure that the final decisions on HMWB and AWB designation are well-informed and scientifically and technically robust.

11 What is involved in the economic analysis of water use? It is highlighted in several places in the WFD that the objectives set out in the Directive are not intended to be achieved at any cost. There are several references to the need to ensure cost-effectiveness and to avoid disproportionate cost and unreasonable expense. It is also important to note that the WFD enforces the polluter pays principle and there is an associated clear focus within the Directive on cost recovery mechanisms. Article 5 of the WFD requires Member States to undertaken an economic analysis of water use. Various studies have therefore been undertaken on behalf of Defra to prepare methodologies for assessing the economic implications of WFD implementation, bearing in mind the above principles. The initial economic investigations commissioned by Defra have comprised the following projects: - economic importance and dynamics of water use relevant for river basin characterisation - assessing current levels of cost recovery and incentive pricing, and - cost effectiveness analysis and developing a methodology for assessing disproportionate costs What do these economic projects involve? As part of the dynamics of use project, case studies from different industry and environmental sectors have been sought by Defra. These case studies provide an opportunity for different groups to describe their use of water, the activities they undertake that may potentially affect water status, and the economic importance of such activities. It is intended that the preparation of such case studies will be helpful in ensuring that the interests of different sectors can begin to be properly considered in the decision making process. The British Marine Federation has prepared a case study for submission to Defra describing the ways in which BMF members use water, the economic importance of the sector, and some of the possible implications of the WFD. As indicated above, an important objective of the WFD is to enforce the polluter pays principle. Amongst other things, the second project is therefore examining mechanisms for recovering costs from those responsible for pollution in its widest sense. Finally, the third report is devising methodologies for determining cost effectiveness and assessing whether costs are disproportionate. These methodologies will apply at various stages of WFD implementation. For example, an important test in determining whether or not a physically-modified water body can be designated as a HMWB is the question of whether the beneficial objectives served by the artificial or modified characteristics of the water body could be achieved by a technically feasible, significantly better environmental option which is not disproportionately costly. Similar tests are applied in the Directive in the following situations: - where derogations are being considered

12 - if new sustainable development or new physical modifications affecting water status are to be permitted, and - in assessing the viability of proposed programmes of measures. How does the WFD see the role of stakeholders? The WFD requires EU Member States to encourage the active involvement of interested parties in the implementation of the Directive. To this end, several consultation exercises have already been carried out (for example, by Defra, the Environment Agency, SEPA), and more are planned. Of particular importance at the time of writing, the outputs of the characterisation process are the subject of consultation. In Scotland, responses to the SEPA report and consultation 1 entitled Pressures and Impacts on Scotland s Water Environment are due by 23 September The consultation document specifically asks respondents to provide information or evidence that needs to be considered before the assessments are finalised. 1 In England and Wales, initial responses (identifying any major errors or omissions) to the Environment Agency characterisation report 2 will be required by 30 September More detailed comments, for example identifying additional available information, are due by 30 November and Further information on the Defra economic analysis is also available 3. Responses are required by Defra by 30 th September ooo- Additional sub-sections describing the following to be prepared in due course,: - monitoring programmes - river basin management plans - programmes of measures - new developments - Article 16 and daughter directive on priority substances and priority hazardous substances - etc.

13 Part II CHARACTERISATION: QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS Why does it matter whether a water body is identified as being at risk of failing to meet WFD objectives? The identification of a water body as being at risk of failing to achieve the objectives of the WFD could have important implications for the way in which that water body - and any activities affecting it - will be managed in future. Ensuring that such decisions take into account all relevant information is therefore likely to be important. According to the SEPA pressures and impacts consultation report, if a water body is initially identified as being at risk, consideration may need to be given to whether the water body should be designated as heavily modified or artificial, or whether alternative objectives (derogations) might be required. In addition: - an appraisal may be needed to establish whether the relevant targets can be achieved without incurring disproportionate costs - there may be a need for a programme of measures to help ensure the water body meets the WFD objectives - the water body will need to be included in the first river basin management planning process If a water body is at risk, this does not imply that SEPA will automatically seek removal of any pressures causing the risk. Conversely, if a water body is not at risk it implies that: - at present, SEPA has no major concerns, but - there will still be a need to ensure that no deterioration in water status takes place In England and Wales the Environment Agency describe the consequences of a water body being identified as at risk in a broadly similar way. In practice, therefore, both monitoring and protection or improvement measures will be focused on at risk water bodies. What is meant by protection and improvement measures? The outcomes of the characterisation exercise - not only the 2004 reports, but also the subsequent refinement exercise - will inform the programmes of measures required to achieve the WFD targets by Measures may be national, regional or local; they may be statutory or non-statutory. Measures can be used to protect or improve the ecological, chemical or hydromorphological (physical) characteristics of water bodies in order to achieve good status and/or to meet the objectives of EU protected areas.

14 From the information currently available, it seems likely that these programmes of measures could potentially have consequences for the following activities: - maintenance activities (not only maintenance dredging and disposal, but also activities such as bank protection and weed control) - navigation/vessel movement (for example related to boat wash and bed disturbance in areas with low under keel clearance) - discharges (eg. licensed, point source) and diffuse pollution (eg. boat emissions, anti-fouling paints) - abstraction or impoundment and related structures (eg. weirs, locks) - new developments (including those affecting the physical characteristics of a water body, such as construction and/or capital dredging requirements) Why does it matter whether a water body is designated as heavily modified or artificial? The WFD introduces targets in respect of ecological quality and the ecological integrity of the water body. The target for natural water bodies (which is referred to as good ecological status or GES) will be derived from the natural, unmodified conditions for that water body type. Strictly speaking, unless there are derogations in place, no allowance should be made for the morphological changes caused by recreational boating infrastructure, such as quay walls, dredged channels, impoundments, etc. However, for water bodies meeting the strict criteria for designation as HMWB or AWB, the required target will be good ecological potential (GEP). GEP targets will be set so as to take into account the morphological - and hence ecological - impacts of the physical modifications required to facilitate the existing use of the water body, for example for recreational boating activities. The ecological targets for designated HMWBs and AWBs will thus recognise and accommodate the physical changes necessary to support the continued (specified) use of the water body. They will therefore be lower than those targets for the equivalent natural water body. Why might water body size matter? The significance - in WFD terms - of certain human activities and/or physical modifications may vary depending on their scale relative to that of the water body in which the activity or modification is located. On the one hand, a small scale activity or modification in a large water body may not cause that water body to be identified as being at risk of failing to meet good status, or lead to its designation as a HMWB. On the other hand, however, unless the water body in question is already at good status, even a relatively small scale activity or modification could potentially be impacted by protection or improvement measures. It remains to be seen whether such measures will be compatible with the continuation of recreational boating activities and, where relevant, any physical modifications of water bodies on which they depend.

15 In reviewing the characterisation reports, it is worth giving careful consideration to the outcomes of the risk assessment. The identification of pressures caused by physical modifications (morphological change) are of particular relevance as this information will inform the identification of phmwbs/awbs. It would be prudent to consider whether these outcomes seem reasonable in view of both the known activities and physical modifications, and the scale of the water body in which they take place. Are the methodologies for the economic analysis relevant to the recreational boating sector? The work being carried out by Defra is certainly relevant to the recreational boating sector for a number of reasons, including the following: - it will be important to ensure that the economic importance of the recreational boating industry is recognised by those with responsibility for implementing the WFD. Whereas BMF has already contributed to a national case study setting out the economic importance of the sector, local and regional issues will also be important. - the application of the polluter pays principle may prove to be especially important to the recreational boating sector, notably those involved in dredging contaminated materials - the cost-effectiveness and disproportionate cost methodologies should be useful in enabling a fair assessment of both the costs and the benefits of possible measures Why is the polluter pays principle so important? The principles of polluter pays and cost recovery, along with the question of who is the polluter?, are likely to be particularly relevant to some of those involved in recreational boating, notably in cases where contaminated material requires dredging. Material which is dredged from, or in the vicinity of, a marina or boatyard may be contaminated with anti-fouling products or other substances which were derived directly from, or are clearly associated with the water based recreational activities. In many other cases, however, sediments act as a sink for contamination caused by third parties and typically derived from upstream sources. Applying the polluter pays principle, there is an argument that the costs of dealing with impacts caused by the dredging of clean sediment, or those associated with contaminants derived directly or indirectly from recreational boating uses, should be borne by the relevant operator. However, the WFD also raises the question of who should meet the difference in costs between dredging such sediments and dredging sediments that have been polluted by others. In what circumstances might the cost-effectiveness analysis and disproportionate cost methodologies be relevant?

16 The starting point for cost effectiveness analysis is that something needs to be done. The methodology for assessing cost-effectiveness then helps to determine which option produces the required benefit in the cheapest manner. Disproportionate cost analysis can then be used to determine whether the value of the beneficial effects of the most cost-effective option exceeds the costs, or whether the costs are greater than the benefits. Activities such as dredging, by their very nature, affect water status - at least on a temporary and local basis. Whilst such effects might not always be considered significant, it nonetheless seems likely that some dredging activities could be constrained to a greater or lesser extent by the implementation of the WFD. The possible implications for dredging are used to exemplify the relevance and application of cost-effectiveness and disproportionate cost analyses to those in the recreational boating sector. Under the terms of the WFD, constraints on dredging could range from seasonal constraints through restrictions on dredging techniques (eg. on overflow) or disposal options, possibly to some cases where dredging will not be permitted. In considering whether or not such constraints are justified, there is a need not only to consider whether the proposed measures are cost effective, but also whether the benefit gained from (or the damage prevented by) constraining dredging is worthy of the extra costs incurred. Such analyses are rarely simple. Indeed, placing money values on environmental quality parameters is very difficult. Nonetheless, under the WFD, this type of analysis will need to be attempted and its outcomes may prove to be of great significance to those in the recreational boating sector. It is therefore important to be sure that the methodologies being developed are - at least in theory - capable of addressing these issues. So, when might costs be disproportionate? In considering the application of disproportionate cost analysis to the dredging of contaminated material, for example, it is important that the methodology enables key questions in respect of actual impacts and their likely significance to be taken into account. In other words, it should not simply be assumed that because there is a pressure, an impact will follow. A particularly relevant question here is whether or not contaminants would be likely to become bio-available (ie. available in the food chain) as a result of dredging. In this example, if it can be shown that contaminants would become bio-available and that there would be adverse consequences in terms of achieving good status, constraints on dredging activity may be justified. Conversely, however, if the contaminants would not become bio-available (and assuming there are no other significant impacts), the additional costs imposed by constraints on dredging may be shown to be disproportionate. The ability of the disproportionate cost methodology to handle such questions will therefore clearly be important.

17 Can stakeholders make a meaningful contribution to the characterisation process? The WFD specifically requires Member States to encourage the active involvement of all interested parties in its implementation. River basin characterisation is not yet complete. However, it is clear that it will be important to those involved in the recreational boating sector to ensure that the characterisation exercise produces scientifically robust, well-informed, transparent outputs. The agencies responsible for carrying out the characterisation exercise similarly recognise the importance of ensuring that their work considers all relevant information and evidence. What can stakeholders contribute, and by when? The time constraints imposed by the Directive in respect of the initial characterisation needing to be complete by the end of 2004 have meant that some parts of the analysis have been carried out using broad-scale, national datasets. These time constraints, and in some cases a lack of easily available data, have meant that confidence in the results of the risk assessment necessarily varies between parameters and/or between geographic areas. Whilst there has been some subsequent ground-truthing work at a local level, it is acknowledged by the competent authorities that many stakeholders may hold valuable additional information. Some of the information held by stakeholders may be important to the outputs of the initial risk assessment work. Other information, particularly more detailed, site-specific data, may be more relevant to the refinement work due to be carried out following completion of the fit-for-purpose review. The Environment Agency website 1 specifically asks respondents to provide comments on significant errors or major omissions or inaccuracies by 30 th September 2004, whilst asking stakeholders to advise them of additional sources of information, etc. by 30 th November The deadline for comments on the information provided by SEPA 2 for Scottish water bodies is 23 rd September and In additional to the characterisation work, stakeholders also have the opportunity to review the work carried out by Defra on the WFD economic analysis 3. Responses to this work are required by Defra by 30 th September What to look for on the websites The Environment Agency and SEPA websites contain information on both the characterisation process and the results of this work, the latter illustrated on maps

18 with associated method statements. The Defra website deals primarily with the economic methodologies developed. As indicated above, when assessing the outputs of the characterisation and risk assessment exercise, it will be important to try to differentiate between aspects requiring urgent attention (typically significant issues which may have a bearing on the information to be reported by the UK to Europe) and those which can be considered in more detail as WFD implementation moves down to a more local level (starting with the post-2004 refinement work). In this regard, when reviewing the information provided, those in the recreational boating sector may wish to consider the following questions: - do the data sets used adequately reflect (albeit indirectly via issues such as physical/morphological change, diffuse pollution sources(tbt), etc.) the nature and extent of recreational boating interests? - do the outputs seem reasonable when the local context is considered? (consider also water body size: see above) - is it clear how decisions have been reached on whether a water body is at risk of failing to meet good status - for example as a result of physical/morphological modifications? - does the relationship between pressures and impacts seem reasonable? - overall, are the conclusions reasonable and scientifically justified? How to respond Details of how to respond, to whom and by when, are provided in the introductory text to each of the documents. Your response - whether it is identifying significant errors, highlighting additional potentially useful information, or commenting on the methods used - should be provided directly to the relevant competent authority as indicated on the website. However, the BMF and RYA would be pleased to receive copies of any such responses in order to be able to monitor and better understand the concerns of their members.