Water Stakeholders Forum

WATER STAKEHOLDERS’ FORUM 24th September 2010 Defra – Nobel House, Smith Square, London

Meeting Note

Contents 1) Agenda

2) Attendees

3) Welcome & introductions

4) EA and Defra updates

5) Evidence Strategy for WFD

6) Breakout sessions:

a. Natural Environment White Paper session

b. Water White Paper session

7) Welcome back/wrap up of breakout sessions

8) Demonstration Test Catchments

9) Any other business and date of next meeting

10) Actions summary

1 1) Agenda

Water Stakeholder Forum 10am – 2.45pm, Friday 24th September, Room 808, Defra Nobel House

Agenda - draft

9.30am Arrivals, tea and coffee 10.00am  Welcome Chris Ryder, Head of Water Quality, Defra

 EA and Defra updates, with Q&A Geoff Bateman, EA and Chris Ryder, Defra

 Evidence strategy for WFD, with Q&A Stuart Kirk, Defra

11.30am Tea and coffee break 11.45am Breakout sessions  1 – Natural Environment White Paper Defra Natural Environment White Paper Team

 2 – Water White Paper Defra Water White Paper Team

12.30pm Lunch 1pm Breakout sessions  1 – Natural Environment White Paper Defra Natural Environment White Paper Team

 2 – Water White Paper Defra Water White Paper Team

1.45pm  Feedback from breakout sessions Chaired by Chris Ryder

 Demonstration Test Catchments Claire McCamphill and Professor Bob Harris, Defra

 Conclusions Chris Ryder, Head of Water Quality, Defra

2.45pm Close

2 2) Attendees

Name Organisation

Adrian Abbott British Hydropower Association John Adlam Dove Associates Ruth Barden Wessex Water Geoff Bateman Environment Agency Ian Bernard British Water Jeremy Biggs Pond Conservation Jan Brooke PIANC Simon Clarke Entec UK Ltd Trevor Clarkson BIS Jackie Coates Chemical Industries Association Dr Adam Comerford British Waterways Hayley Conboy Confederation of British Industry Dr Kieran Conlan Cascade Consulting Glen Cooper Natural England Steve Darling Defra Vicky Dawe Defra Julie Dickason Defra Conor Doherty Forestry Commission Hazel Doonan Agricultural Industries Confederation Mike Dunbar NERC Centre for Ecology and Hydrology Kevin East Canoe England Neil Edwards RWE NPower Jim Egan FWAG Simon Eyre Anglian Water Lynn Fardon Defra Gary Foyle Christchurch Borough Council Martin Furness Ofwat Sophie George BIS Laura Grant CIWEM Janina Gray Salmon & Trout Association Bob Harris Defra Paul Hickey Environment Agency Bryan Homan United Utilities Martyn Hopkinson SBWWI Carrie Hume Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust (WWT) Lewis Jones South West Water Martin Key CCPR Stuart Kirk Defra Ivor Llewelyn Atlantic Salmon Trust Philippa Mansfield Natural England Claire McCamphill Defra

3 Robert Moore WRC Pamela Moult Crop Protection Association Rob Oates Thames Rivers Restoration Trust Mark G. Owen Angling Trust Michael Payne NFU Helen Perkins The Wildlife Trusts W. Piatkiewicz Galvanizers Association Claire Pollard DWI Caroline Price Royal Yachting Association Camilla Puzey LEAF Ian Rayner East Riding of Yorkshire Council Tony Ripley Defra Archie Ruggles-Brise Association of Rivers Trusts Nicci Russell Waterwise Chris Ryder Defra Kemi Saka BIS Gary Scroby The Horticultural Trades Association John Spence Southern Water Debbie Stringer CPI Justin Taberham CIWEM Lesley Tait Thames Water Sarah Thomas CCWater Russell Todd Defra Neil Tytler Water Framework Directive Information Centre (WFDIC) Ralph Underhill RSPB Craig Walker Defra Noel Wheatley Ofwat Holly Yates Defra Verity Zurita Defra

3) Welcome & Introductions – Chris Ryder

3.1 Chris Ryder welcomed everyone to the Forum.

3.2 Chris then provided a brief update on developments since the last Stakeholder Forum meeting in February:  We now have a new Government and new Ministers!  We are still clarifying policy with them – particularly around what we can do to address diffuse pollution. Not just agriculture, but on this, the favoured approach is advice and incentives, with the possibility of regulation where necessary.  When the policy on diffuse pollution is announced, we expect the following elements to be quite prominent: action driven at catchment level, and the need to maximise what civil society can do to help address the issue. When

4 public money is becoming scarcer, we need to mobilise other groups to help deliver.  We have 2 White Papers in development – the Natural Environment White Paper and Water White Paper. There are opportunities here to develop big messages about how we are going to address WQ and how to mobilise paid ecosystems services. We want to collect your ideas on what these messages should be.  Other developments include the Flood and Water Management Act in April, the transposition of the Priority Substances Directive in August, the confirmation of the Thames Tunnel in September. The Marine Strategy Framework Directive also came into law in July.  The NAO report on diffuse pollution contains some pertinent messages.  It’s also worth mentioning the Macdonald Task Force on Farming Regulation.  So we have the White Papers – but we need action before these too. The EA Investigations will help us to drive forward action – we are not waiting for the 2nd cycle before taking steps.

3.3. Michael Payne asked for a definition of what was meant by ‘catchment’.

3.4 Chris Ryder responded that actions need to be understood and taken locally. Some people argue that there should be catchment plans. Recognise there is room for debate about what a catchment is.

4) Environment Agency Update – Geoff Bateman

4.1 Please see Geoff Bateman’s slides for more detail (circulated and available on the Water Stakeholder Forum webpages: http://www.euwfd.net/html/england_and_the_wfd.html). The points below are mainly in addition to, rather than repeating, the content of the presentation.

4.2 Geoff said that in one month’s time we expect to have the 2010 WFD classifications and the outcome of the investigations programme planning.

4.3 He mentioned that the GQA assessment published the previous week showed an indication of improvements.

4.4 Geoff commented that the EA is now looking to fill the gaps and clarify full reasons for failure of water bodies.

4.5 He also noted that the implementation of River Basin Management Plans needs to look at catchment scale actions. He commented that the idea of ‘catchments’ is an

5 active debate – and that some actions were best taken across water bodies, some water body by water body.

4.6 Geoff stated the need for others to act as well as the EA. He mentioned the Kennet Action Plan as an example which had received very positive feedback as an example of a ‘catchment plan’, but recommended a flexible approach.

4.7 Geoff mentioned that EA would like to have an interactive web-based system to enable partners to access and provide information on River Basin District Plans and delivery of the programme of measures in the 2nd cycle instead of the hard copies available now.

4.8 He stated that Defra had provided the EA with an additional £1.3million this year for delivery of measures including removing barriers to fish migration.

Questions and comments

4.9 Michael Payne asked about the projected improvements slide. GES understates the improvements, because of the ‘one out, all out’ principle. Does EA have some way of capturing the improvements that may be missed here?

4.10 Geoff responded that EA will provide in-class element improvement to ensure trends are reported, but this is not available yet. Also they are currently carrying out a review of heavily modified water bodies with additional biological information to see if they are at GES.

4.11 John Spence asked about the pie charts on reasons for failure. He asked what the ‘unknown reasons for failure’ represents?

4.12 Geoff explained the investigations in the plans are to fill these gaps in our knowledge, for example in some cases EA knows what element has failed, but not the source. Finding out this information will help us to understand what action needs to be taken.

4.13 Jan Brooke asked about heavily modified water bodies. How many are at GES?

4.14 Geoff responded, not known yet but probably a few.

4.15 Jan Brooke asked if this relates to TRAC water bodies – can you assume maintenance dredging is not affecting GES?

4.16 Geoff stated that the science of hydromorphology was new in the first round of the RBMPs. EA will be undertaking more work with increasing knowledge gained from research and interested sectors to clarify this.

6 4.17 Sarah Thomas commented that catchment based solutions are great, but the Spending Review may throw up some challenges – these kind of ideas may fall through the gap. Catchment solutions need support. How will EA/Defra prioritise actions?

4.18 Geoff responded that EA is pressing to deliver the outcomes committed to in the Plans.

4.19 Chris Ryder commented that we do live in hard times. We must be inventive about how we pay for things. Government funds are diminishing. But there are ways – for example, funds relating to agriculture could be more effectively targeted. We also need to think about people acting at the local level. Others are interested in environmental improvements and raise money for this.

4.20 Claire McCamphill stated that there are over 100 catchments. We can’t do this everywhere, at the same time. We do need to think about other partners, such as Rivers Trusts, as well as EA/NE. We are also looking at how our delivery bodies can work better together – this will include Forestry Commission and others. We recognise that we could join up more. We are also thinking about the role of ecosystems services. Lots of this thinking will go into the Natural Environment White Paper.

4.21 Neil Edwards asked what is EA planning to say re: the ‘destination statement’ that is not included in the RBMPs?

4.22 Geoff replied that the Destination Statement would map out the route, as well as the target. It will be more tangible.

4.23 Ralph Underhill asked for Geoff’s slides. He also commented that although the Kennet had been good work - RSPB wouldn’t describe it as the ‘creme de la creme’ of catchment plans – we are working towards this.

4.24 ACTION Verity to circulate presentation slides

4.25 Simon Eyre stated that Anglian Water have a large catchment management project. However obtaining the relevant data is a problem for us. It would help if we could access this data at a catchment scale.

4.26 Geoff responded that all EA’s data is public data, and it is available. The problem of access to data is only where the data owned by others. EA is currently developing ‘Geostore’ which will help to make our data more available?

7 4.27 Martin Furness asked what measures and timescales were in place to tackle non-agricultural diffuse pollution?

4.28 Chris Ryder introduced Paul Hickey, Head of Water Quality at EA. Paul stated that EA have a strategy for this, and a report which lists measures and priorities.

4.29 Archie Ruggles-Brise commented that the Association of Rivers Trusts is very used to working in catchments. The data available is OK – but you don’t get the data behind the GES category – this is the information that would help us to make decisions and plan. We know this information is available, but it is hard to get hold of.

4.30 Geoff stated that local offices would have this information, and EA is looking to pool this information going forwards.

4.31 Archie added that at present we can see high/medium/low data but this is no good for adding data into the system – no way to do this.

4.32 Rob Oates commented that the Thames Rivers Trust had a ‘quick and dirty’ attempt to get at the actions required at catchment level and had produced a report on their work on the River Rey. He offered to share this with the group.

4.34 ACTION Verity to circulate River Rey report with Minutes

4.35 Rob also asked if, on 21st October following the Spending Review announcement, things will be clearer in terms of Defra/EA/NE resources and priorities? At the moment we feel a bit in limbo.

4.36 Chris Ryder noted the concern, and that we need to clarify the situation as soon as we can. But stated that it was unlikely that things would be completely clear so soon after the SR announcement.

4.37 Mike Dunbar asked if data on land management use over time was held by Defra/ADAS? Can’t this be shared?

4.38 Claire McCamphill responded that if this refers to agricultural census data, there are reasons why we can’t share it. If this is a significant issue however, we need you to raise it through the White Papers, so that we might change things.

4.39 Michael Payne stated his concern that CAMS might be subsumed by WFD.

4.40 Geoff Bateman responded that it would be foolish to look at water quantity and quality independently, and that WFD is something that brings these things together. Geoff stated he is looking at the CAMS engagement process to see how overall engagement on WFD might be improved.

8 5) Evidence Strategy for WFD – Stuart Kirk

5.1 Chris Ryder introduced Stuart Kirk, who has been looking at Defra’s current evidence programme around the WFD and making recommendations for improvements. He spent over 10 years at the EA working on various aspects of catchment management science and implementation of the WFD.

Please see Stuart Kirk’s slides for more detail (circulated and available on the Water Stakeholder Forum webpages: http://www.euwfd.net/html/england_and_the_wfd.html). The points below are mainly in addition to, rather than repeating, the content of the presentation.

5.2 Stuart stated that Defra is already doing a lot of joint working with EA on evidence, but could do a lot more.

5.3 He said he had previously assumed that Defra research would be more policy orientated and EA’s very technical – but in practice, the picture is more mixed than this.

5.4 Defra is already embedding a lot of the recommendations around ‘new ways of working’. For example, Water Availability and Quality (WAAQ) is looking to embed more academics into its policy teams – we now have 3 already started in WAAQ. And ‘Systematic Reviews’ are being considered for various aspects of the WAAQ programme.

5.5 Stuart has identified scope for more, longer term, strategic projects as opposed to ones that address shorter term, single issues, as well as potential, new evidence partnerships.

Questions and comments

5.6 Debbie Stringer commented that there had been no mention of industry, under ‘stakeholders/research bodies’ – will you be looking to validate some of the data you collect with industry?

5.7 Stuart replied yes, further down the line, but at present just looking at external ‘big players’ doing research. He added that Defra is developing soft knowledge networks with researchers who may also help provide links with industry.

5.8 Ian Bernard from British Water said that ‘technology’ had not been mentioned yet. We need to boost this area – specifically around developing more innovative techniques.

9 5.9 Stuart responded that socio-economics and technology is established as a strong cross-cutting theme that is very much at the heart of what we’re doing.

5.10 Vicky Dawe added that on the sustainable drainage side of things – you may want to pick this up in the Water White Paper. Retrofitting Sustainable Drainage Systems will be the bigger challenge, and we need to be working together on this. She stated that Defra is already talking to a number of big engineering firms to bring in industry.

5.11 Neil Tytler said that the WFDIC had 60 years of research which could be used. Stuart replied he was aware of this and that this was exactly the kind of knowledge they want to tap into – maximising use of secondary research, before commissioning more primary research,

6) Breakout sessions a. Natural Environment White Paper

6.1 Please see Matthew’s presentation slides for more detail (circulated and available on the Water Stakeholder Forum webpages: http://www.euwfd.net/html/england_and_the_wfd.html). The points below are mainly in addition to, rather than repeating, the content of the presentation.

6.2 This session began with a short presentation from Matthew Sabourin, followed by questions and then discussions in small groups looking at specific areas (urban and rural) and considering how different groups in society, as well as government, could play a role in protecting and enhancing the natural environment.

6.3 Comments included: the need to engage the ‘non-engaged’ communities (potentially also those that are most deprived of the natural environment but could stand to benefit the most), the need for eco-systems services, the point that demographic changes should be taken into account, the need to engage young people and schools, that all land management policy needs to be brought into a coherent framework, the need to clarify – in relation to the Big Society - the exact role of Government in the process, the need to draw in other government departments from the beginning and embed ‘natural value’ in all Government policy.

6.4 For more information and to respond to the discussion document, visit http://ww2.defra.gov.uk/environment/natural/whitepaper/. b. Water White Paper

6.5 Please see Julie and Tony’s presentation slides for more detail (circulated and available on the Water Stakeholder Forum webpages:

10 http://www.euwfd.net/html/england_and_the_wfd.html). The points below are mainly in addition to, rather than repeating, the content of the presentation.

6.6 The session began with a presentation from Julie Dickason and Tony Ripley, and then participants were invited to add their ideas on post-it notes to boards around the room under the headings of the key themes of the Water White Paper.

6.7 Julie and Tony stated that although the Water White Paper was largely focused on industry, the dividing line between the WWP and NEWP had not been set in stone, and so WFD issues should be raised in both Papers.

6.8 Comments raised by attendees included: the need for smarter regulation; the need to calculate and communicate the true value of water; need to balance sufficient water supply for the future whilst protecting the environment; support for water metering; need to facilitate people, communities and businesses to take action to conserve water themselves – via information and incentives.

6.8 Participants were asked to consider how the big society and localism could play a role in the WWP. Some ideas were discussed around catchment management for drinking water supplies and water efficiency.

6.9 For more information and to respond to the online survey, visit http://ww2.defra.gov.uk/environment/quality/water/whitepaper/.

7) Welcome back/wrap up of breakout sessions

7.1 Claire McCamphill urged people to feed into both White Papers. She asked stakeholders to tell Defra what the barriers are to Big Society, and ideas for removing those barriers. Also if anyone would be interested in grassroots consultation sessions – please get in touch with the White Paper teams.

7.2 Jan Brooke commented that the break down between water use and water services under WFD could be helpful in terms of separating the issues between the Natural Environment White Paper and Water White Paper.

7.3 Chris Ryder thanked everyone for their input to the discussion. He stated that there are some things we can be pleased about – for example, moving some elements of Catchment Sensitive Farming into RDPE levered out additional EU funds; and the additional £10 million we secured did lever out funding from the third sector.

8) Demonstration Test Catchments – Professor Bob Harris

8.1 Please see Bob’s presentation slides for more detail (circulated and available on the Water Stakeholder Forum webpages: http://www.euwfd.net/html/england_and_the_wfd.html). The points below are mainly in addition to, rather than repeating, the content of the presentation.

11 8.2 Bob stated that we need to establish a shared vision of integrated catchment management.

8.3 He also stated the need to learn from the experiences of other Member States; Claire McCamphill added that the Demo Test Catchments would be the UK input into an EU Pilot River Basin Network, which aimed to share experiences and ideas.

9 ) Any other business and date of next meeting

9.1 Chris Ryder thanked everyone for coming and their input into the discussions. He suggested that the next meeting would be late January 2011.

9.2 ACTION Verity to circulate provisional date for next meeting when known

10) Actions summary

Action Owner Status

4.24 Verity to circulate Verity Zurita Done presentation slides

4.34 Verity to circulate River Rey Verity Zurita Done report with Minutes

9.2 Verity to circulate provisional Verity Zurita Done date for next meeting when known