China Europe Water Platform

Technical Research on Integrated Permitting of Water Resources (Task A07-1)

on behalf of

Ministry of Water Resources (MWR) DG Environment (ENV)

DG Development and Cooperation (DEVCO)

Martin Griffiths, Dong Yanfei, Cheng Dongsheng, Palle Grevy and Liu Linghua,

November 2013

The EU-China Policy Dialogues Support Facility (PDSF II) is a project financed jointly by the European Union and the Government of the People's Republic of China, implemented by a consortium led by Grontmij A/S.

This publication has been produced with the assistance of the European Union. The content is the sole responsibility of Grontmij A/S and can in no way be taken to reflect the views of the European Union.

Locations EU and China Dialogue partners  Minstry of Water Resources, China  DG Environment (ENV)  International Economic and Technical Exchange and Cooperation Centre of the Ministry of Water  China Institute of Water Resources and Hydropower Research  Grontmij A/S Brief description of assignment This report investigates integrated water resources permitting policy and practice in Europe and China and develops options for potential review and reform in China. The activity was undertaken under the Governance Pillar of the China Europe Water Platform (CEWP). This report examines the current water resource regulatory and permitting approaches in Europe, focusing on UK and Denmark. It also reviews current water resource permitting in China. The study aimed to develop a common understanding of permitting methodology, with a view to understanding principles and practice with the potential for application in China. This report was prepared by a team of European and Chinese experts and practitioners who undertook the study with a view to developing a common understanding of options available to water managers that will increase water security and could speed up the reform of water resource management in China. Knowledge exchange on water permitting was a key aim. Workshops, lectures and seminars were held with water managers from south and north China and with other influential groups. Internships and a structured training programme to Hungary, UK and Denmark were linked to this work. Tasked by Chris Brown Programme Manager, EU-China Policy Dialogues Support Facility (PDSF) PDSF activity number Task A07-1

Task A07-1 China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page i

Acknowledgements

The principal contributors to the drafting of this study were Dr Martin Griffiths from the UK, Palle Grevy from Grontmij A/S in Denmark and Dr Cheng Dongsheng of the China Institute of Water Resources and Hydropower Research.

A Chinese team, led by Dong Yanfei, Director of the International Economic and Technical Exchange and Cooperation Centre of the Ministry of Water, facilitated the partnership work and ensured that the interactions were optimised, especially the internal meetings with MWR and other bureaus and agencies. Mrs Sun Yan, Mrs Liu Linghua, Miss Wu Zheru and Miss Lihui have also contributed to this study team significantly. The exchange and dissemination elements were particularly valuable, especially the two workshops on integrated permitting, one in Jiangsu on 7 May 2013 for southern China and one in Hu'lun'bei'er, Inner Mongolia, on 24 September 2013,for northern China. We thank those that attended and the organisers.

The team would also like to thank the EU Policy Dialogue Support Fund II (PDSF) project team, especially Chris Brown who ensured co-ordination and gave considerable support throughout.

Thanks also to Grontmij A/S in Denmark who supported this work on behalf of PDSF, particularly, Kim Madsbjerg, Stefan Einarsson and Palle Grevy. They helped with the overview, the internships and the structured training programme to Europe.

We would like to thank to the other core members of the China Europe Water Platform (CEWP): Henrik Dissing as co-ordinator, Lars Anderson, leading the Research Pillar and Simon Spooner, leading the Business Pillar. The cross-cutting potential of this work has been helped by their input and support.

The EU and Member States contributed to the development of much of the technical policy and guidance material in this report. We are grateful that this is available and thank them for the ability to reproduce this, with full acknowledgement.

The EU Delegation in Beijing was crucial for the funding and commissioning of this study. Thanks should go to the Development and Cooperation Section who supported the initial work programme and to Cesar Moreno, who has recently joined and added this to his work portfolio.

Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013 Task A07-1 China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page ii

Table of Contents

Acknowledgements i

Summary vii

1 Introduction 1

1.1 Study Scope 1 1.2 Regulatory Principles 2 1.2.1 Why should we regulate and permit water resources? 2 1.2.2 Proportionate Approach to Permitting 4 1.2.3 Risk Based Approach to Permitting 5 1.2.4 Integrated River Basin Management 6 1.2.5 Links to Spatial Planning 6 1.2.6 Links to Environmental Impact Analysis (EIA) 7 1.3 Future Trends in Water and Environmental Regulation 8 1.4 Project Working Method 10

2 Institutional Arrangements in Europe 12

2.1 Overview 12 2.2 Sovereignty and principles of subsidiarity in EU environmental legislation 12 2.3 Competent Authority Role 14 2.4 River basin management in Europe 15 2.5 Enforcement and control 17 2.6 International co-ordination and co-operation 18 2.7 Best practice on water management in EU 20 2.8 Environmental Protection Agencies and Equivalent 21 2.8.1 Breadth of function 21 2.8.2 Air, Land and Water 22 2.8.3 The Case for Independent Water Regulation 22 2.8.4 Funding 23

Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013 Task A07-1 China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page iii

2.9 UK Environment Agency 23 2.10 IMPEL Network - best practice across EU regulators 25 2.11 European Environment Agency 26

3 Setting Environmental Standards and Environmental

Monitoring 28

3.1 River Basin Planning 28 3.2 The Objectives and Water Standards 30 3.3 Monitoring 31

4 EU/ UK Approach to Water Permitting 34

4.1 Water Framework Directive 34 4.2 EU Water Blueprint 35 4.3 UK Water Law 35 4.4 UK Permits 36 4.4.1 Water Quantity/Water Resources 37 4.4.2 Water Quality 38 4.5 Permit application process 38 4.5.1 Abstraction Permit or Licence 39 4.5.2 Discharge permit process UK 39 4.6 Permit application forms 40 4.7 Permit format and examples 41 4.7.1 Current UK Permit 41 4.8 Permit conditions 42 4.9 Monitoring, inspection and compliance assessment 43 4.9.1 Monitoring and inspection terminology 43 4.9.2 Monitoring of permit Conditions – Overview 44 4.9.3 Quality assurance 44 4.9.4 Choice of Sampling Point 45 4.9.5 Access, facilities and services 45 4.9.6 Sample bottles, storage and transportation. 46 4.9.7 Laboratory analysis and choosing a method 46 4.9.8 Flow measurement 47 4.10 Permit Charging Systems – Cost Recovery 47 4.11 Future UK Permits 50 4.12 Enforcement and Prosecution 50 4.13 Public Access to information 55 4.13.1 EA What’s in my Backyard – 55 4.14 Pollution Incidents 58 4.14.1 National Incident Recording System and database 60 4.15 Communication and Publicity on Water and Environment 61

Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013 Task A07-1 China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page iv

5 Case Study - Water Permitting in Denmark 65

5.1 Administrative arrangements in Denmark 65 5.1.1 Planning, permitting and delegation of responsibilities 65 5.1.2 Ministry of Environment and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 66 5.1.3 The municipalities 67 5.1.4 River Basin Management Planning 68 5.2 Application and Permitting Procedures - Overview 69 5.3 Complex Permissions 70 5.3.1 EIA Based Permissions 70 5.3.2 IPPC based permissions 71 5.3.3 Seveso Directive Based Permissions 72 5.4 Discharge of Water - Simple Applications Denmark 73 5.4.1 The application process 74 5.4.2 Application forms 75 5.4.3 Example of information required on temporary discharge of water to the ocean 76 5.4.4 Example of information in an application for household discharge into sewer systems 77 5.4.5 Example - Discharge of water - Copenhagen 77 5.4.6 General approach for permitting on discharges to sewer systems 78 5.4.7 Example format and content of simple permission 78 5.5 Abstraction of Water - Simple Applications - Denmark 80 5.5.1 Simple application process for abstraction permit 82 5.5.2 Abstraction of drinking and irrigation water in the open land 82 5.5.3 Abstraction in densely populated town areas 83 5.5.4 Simple application forms 83 5.5.5 Example Abstraction of drinking and irrigation water in the open land 84 5.5.6 Abstraction in densely populated town areas 86 5.6 Example - Format and content a simple permission 86 5.7 Inspection and compliance assessment 89 5.8 Enforcement 90 5.8.1 Admonition 90 5.8.2 Enforcement order 90 5.8.3 Enjoinment 90 5.8.4 Self-help activities 91 5.8.5 Loss of environmental liability 91

Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013 Task A07-1 China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page v

6 Chinese Approach to Water Regulation 92

6.1 Chinese Legal Framework-Water Protection and Regulation 92 6.2 Key Ministries-Roles and Responsibilities 95 6.3 Roles of Provinces and River Basin Authorities 98 6.4 Three red Lines 99 6.5 Water Protection Zones (Water Functional Area) 104 6.6 Current Permits 105 6.6.1 How are they set/modelled and river need calculations? 105 6.6.2 Environmental Flow 105 6.6.3 Water Drawing Permits 106 6.6.4 Water Pollution/Water Quality Permits 112 6.7 Monitoring 114 6.7.1 Monitoring of Permit Compliance 114 6.7.2 Monitoring of receiving environment 116 6.8 Enforcement and Sanctions 117 6.9 Charging/Cost recovery 117 6.10 Supervision and inspection 119 6.11 Public Access to information 120

7 Proposals for Review and Reform of Water Permits in

China 121

7.1 Justification and overview 121 7.2 Approach and structure 123 7.3 Policy Planning 125 7.4 Set Environmental Objectives 126 7.5 Permit Legislation 128 7.6 Set Permit 129 7.7 Inspection and Monitoring of Permits 131 7.8 Assess Compliance 132 7.9 Enforcement Options 133 7.10 Communication 134 7.11 Change Programme 134

Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013 Task A07-1 China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page vi

8 Glossary of Terms 138

Annex 1 – EU Permit Examples 141

Annex 2 – Key Document Library and References 143

Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013 Task A07-1 China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page vii

Summary

This report forms part of the policy dialogue between China and the EU in the water sector. It is a China Europe Water Platform (CEWP) study which builds on the previous Strategic Knowledge Exchange Programme from the EU China River Basin Management Programme (EU China RBMP).

The study was set the following agreed objectives

 Improved licensing and permitting of water abstraction and discharge.  Improved access to policy, strategy and legal documents in China and Europe on inter alia water efficiency.  Mobilisation of the research and business communities.  Enhanced visibility of the CEWP in China and Europe

The study supports the Chinese Ministry of Water Resources in reviewing and upgrading the existing Water Abstraction Permitting Procedures and will assist in initiating cooperation with the Ministry of Environmental Protection to develop proposals for a more integrated approach to water resources permitting procedures for China. It will make available EU experience and knowledge of water regulatory systems and permitting, elements of which may be adapted for use in China. In addition, knowledge of the current and proposed water permitting system in China will be of importance to research and business communities co-operating with Chinese water research, business and infrastructure.

The key findings of this report are:

1. There are significant similarities in administrative approach to water resources permitting in the EU and China. The overall regulatory framework, application procedures, granting of permits and the basics of regulation are parallel in many ways. This has assisted in a mutual understanding and common dialogue resulting in the adoption of the common permitting and regulatory model shown in Figure 1. This provides a structure for the report and the basis for discussion and future development.

Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013 Task A07-1 China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page viii

Figure 1- Water Resource Permitting and the Regulatory Cycle

2. Permitting must be viewed in the context of long term water resource planning and the setting of clear and protective environmental objectives. These objectives and standards determine the conditions set in the permits 3. The China No.1 Water Document1 potentially provides adequate strategic direction for water resource reform and sustainable practice, provided that it is implemented effectively. 4. The Three Red Lines Policy and the developing guidance provide a strong basis for setting standards for water resources, water efficiency and water quality. However these standards can only be protective if used to set stringent standards which can improve water security and environmental protection. 5. An initial review of the water resource legislation in China indicates that the majority of legal powers and provisions are in place to secure strong permit conditions. There are some contradictions in elements of the regulations that mean that regulatory responsibilities are not always clear. 6. The concept of a lead role or ‘competent authority’ that has clear oversight of the regulatory process is recommended. This concept has worked well across the EU in the implementation of environmental directives. It is suggested that MRW is empowered to take a clear lead and to work with other Ministries and implementation authorities to ensure co-ordinated and robust delivery.

1 The China No.1 Water Document 2011, published 31 December 2010, in force 1 January 2011, is a formal decision of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China (CPC) and the State Council on accelerating the water conservancy reform and development

Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013 Task A07-1 China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page ix

7. Concerns are expressed at the implementation stage of permit determination. Many current permits are ‘administrative’ and permit standards do not link adequately to the targets set to protect the water resource, in terms of quality and quantity. In addition there are conflicts of interest, especially at provincial and municipal levels where responsibilities to promote economic growth clash with the need for water resource protection. Permits are not written in a way that allows for clear understanding of what is expected by the regulated or the regulators. This makes enforcement and compliance assessment difficult, if not impossible. 8. Inspection and monitoring of permits appears inconsistent and patchy across administrations. There is little or no data sharing or evidence of compliance assessment within or across river basins. The lack of a ‘feedback loop’ makes water resource planning and review and improvement difficult to target and optimise. 9. Very little enforcement action is apparent, apart from reaction to some extreme negligence or deliberate polluting actions, where sanctions can be extreme. There seems little proportionality or consistency of approach that would provide improved understanding of the importance of meeting permit conditions. Enforcement and prosecution information and reports were not available. 10. Communication across government stakeholders is weak and new methods to communicate the importance of increased water security, the steps needed to improve and current and future performance is lacking. Communication to the regulated community, industry and municipalities, and the general public would assist in changing attitudes to water resource protection and improvement. 11. Additional training and competence building is essential if these reforms are to be successful. New monitoring programmes for the water environment and the permitted abstractions and discharges are needed. Laboratory and data handling facilities will need to be developed. 12. The EU undertook most water resource reforms and environmental improvements during periods of economic growth. China is in a similar phase at present and should take the opportunity to increase water security and reduce environmental impact, through following a path of sustainable and integrated water resource management. 13. Modern Regulatory approaches are being implemented in EU as part of wider regulatory reforms across government. Some lessons could be learnt from these approaches and more effective and risk based regulation may assist in driving this forward. 14. A significant Change Programme on Permitting is recommended to develop and introduce these concepts into operational use in China 15. A second stage of co-operation on water resource planning and permitting between China and the EU is recommended to speed up reform and reduce implementation risks. This should include developing ‘top to bottom’ worked examples utilising the permitting and regulatory model developed. This could take the form of pilot studies on real water bodies (surface and groundwater) and placing water resources experts together to exchange views and develop innovative methods to suit China.

Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013 Task A07-1 China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page x

Finally, China has a great opportunity to undertake this reform. It was signalled in the No. 1 Policy Document in 2011. Many of the basic building blocks are in place, but significant change is required to ensure water security and the sustainable long-term protection of water resources. The computer power, modelling facilities, hydrology and engineering skills are all available and these changes can be achieved if the vision and need is communicated well to those who can drive the changes forward. Partnership working may accelerate progress and build strong working relationships between China and Europe.

A summary of these findings was presented at the CEWP High Level Conference, held in association with the Budapest Water Summit which ran from the 8th to 11th October 2013. A structured training programme to Hungary, UK and Denmark has been aligned with this study. It enabled delegates to see some of the elements of water resource regulation highlighted in this report. In addition an internship programme to Denmark and Hungary was developed for two senior water resource managers. It took place in September and early October 2013 and focussed on aspects of this permitting study, in a wide EU policy and operational context.

Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013 Task A07-1 China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 1

1 Introduction

1.1 Study Scope The study focusses on the permitting processes in use in the EU and China with a view to understanding best practice elements that may be used in a potential review of permits in China.

Water permitting and water resource protection cannot be seen in isolation. It is an integral part of the river basin planning process. Permits must reflect the agreed objectives in the water environment and the conditions are set to ensure the maintenance and possible improvement of the receiving waters. They should also reflect the risks identified in the catchment and the need to mitigate and control impacts.

If there were no abstractors or polluting dischargers, there would be no need for permits. Operators abstracting water and/or discharging effluent need to be aware of their impact on the water environment and other water users in the catchment. The permits should be seen as a privilege and a benefit to the holder. Without a permit they would be subject to prosecution for illegally abstracting or discharging water.

The permit should be clear and holders should ensure that the conditions are met and if necessary reductions in abstraction or improvements in quality are met. Early disclosure of need should ensure that permit conditions are realistic and achievable. This should allow stable operating of treatment plants, known costs and planned operation and maintenance.

For the reasons above the project scope and report structure can be summarised in Figure 1. It will focus on the permitting process cycle, in the context of policy planning and environmental objectives.

The flowing Figure 1.1 from the UK Environment Agency shows the wider context of permit setting and the red circle indicates the focus of the interest on the Water Abstraction Permit System. Similar principles apply to water quality planning.

In simple terms, China undertakes the supply and demand assessment (right hand side) competently and feeds this into the permitting system, even though there are concerns over

Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013 Task A07-1 China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 2 the inadequate resolution of the water resource allocation system. However the Ecological Needs Assessment (left hand side) is still in its infancy.

Figure 1.1 Permit Context – Water Allocation Planning

Therefore, this study focusses on the permitting elements, in the context of the wider water resource regulatory systems.

1.2 Regulatory Principles

1.2.1 Why should we regulate and permit water resources?

Water is a scarce and critical natural resource which needs protection from over abstraction, water pollution and physical and morphological changes.

Regulation enables this resource to be used, protected and shared by society within the framework of sustainable development, namely in societal, economic and environmental terms; for current and future generations.

Taking the sustainable development model, the need and benefits of regulation and permitting can be seen in the following terms.

Societal  To ensure public health, clean water supply and sanitation to all

Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013 Task A07-1 China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 3

 To ensure equitable sharing of water resources within international, national, regional and local boundaries; and/or at river basin, sub-basin and water body level  To accommodate and provide for urban and agricultural development  To reduce the impacts of floods and drought  To ensure the affordability of potable water and sanitation for essential uses  To ensure food production through irrigation (need water efficiency here)  To optimise fish production for food  To ensure access for recreation, education, and tourism  To ensure religious and cultural wellbeing (e.g. India and religious bathing)

Economic  To promote sustainable economic development, industry and wealth creation  To allocate scarce water resource equitably between sectors. For instance, agriculture, industry and domestic users, whilst leaving enough for the river ecology to continue to thrive.  To ensure a level playing field (internationally, nationally and locally) for industry requiring water for production and process  To ensure certainty and to reduce investment risks within a marketplace  To ensure affordable raw water and wastewater costs and to clearly indicate treatment cost and liabilities  To prevent monopoly water suppliers from distorting markets  To ensure clear requirements for water use and pollution control measures through clear and understandable permits and regulatory environment.  To ensure navigation, ports and trade, tourism and recreational industries  To improve health and safety of workforce and local communities  To reduce risks to industry, including continuity of supply, quality of supply and regulatory and prosecution risk  To ensure that the polluter pays  To encourage innovation  To optimise environmental service provision from the natural environment

Environmental  To ensure healthy environmental ecosystems and wetlands  To protect biodiversity and the aquatic systems that they rely on  To optimise river morphology and encourage best ecological potential for heavily modified waters  To optimise river catchment function to reduce flooding and drought  To ensure continuity of flow, environmental signals (eg freshets for migratory fish) and minimal physical barriers  To ensure minimum river flows, manage sedimentation and maintain river morphology  To ensure sustainable groundwater levels and soil water interactions

Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013 Task A07-1 China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 4

 To optimise sustainable use of environmental services by society at least cost  To identify and reduce anthropogenic risks to wildlife, fisheries and the natural environment  To promote awareness and knowledge of environmental value through education  To ensure the precautionary principle with regard to ecosystem protection  To preserve landscape, geography and water related features

Fair, efficient and effective regulation of water resources is an essential element for ensuring water security in and increasingly uncertain world. If used well it should optimise societal wellbeing within a framework of sustainable development.

The following quotation from OECD assists in this understanding

Environmental permitting is a key instrument for reducing industry’s environmental impacts, facilitating its compliance with environmental requirements and promoting technological innovation.

Example of investment based on safe and well regulated water infrastructure

In January 2012, CIC – China’s Sovereign Wealth Fund – bought an 8.68% minority stake in Kemble Water, the parent company of leading UK utility group Thames Water, which supplies water and sewerage services to approximately 14m people in London and the Thames Valley.

This marks ‘The growing preference of Chinese investors for low-risk physical assets offering safe and stable returns’. Commenting at the time, Mr Lou Jiwei, the chairman of the CIC, stated that he was pleased to invest in a safe and well regulated business environment. Telegraph Newspaper 13 January 2013

1.2.2 Proportionate Approach to Permitting

It is important to ensure that regulatory activities, including permitting are proportionate to the risks posed by the installation. This means that there must be a balance of risk, regulatory pressure and benefit to the permit holder and the regulator. The demands of permit application process monitoring, reporting and other issues on the operator should be reasonable. However, the regulator, on behalf of society must ensure adequate protection and certainty that the installation is operating safely and that risks are minimised. The resources allocated by the regulator must be allocated according to those risks and the potential benefits that can be achieved.

The optimisation of this proportionate approach and to improve the balance between regulated and regulator is the subject of many of the Modern Regulation reforms that are taking place around the world. This is highlighted in section 1.3 below.

Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013 Task A07-1 China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 5

1.2.3 Risk Based Approach to Permitting

Risk management is a proactive approach focused on the design of measures that will be put in place in advance of extreme events to prevent or mitigate the level of risk exposure and, hence, vulnerability to impacts. The traditional approach in Europe in the previous century and still predominant in China was to be reactive, taking a disaster mitigation approach to extreme events, rather than a more proactive approach.

The terminology of ‘risk management’ and ‘risk based approaches’ is being used increasingly frequent for water security strategies developed worldwide as well as for this project. The terminology should be clarified to increase understanding and to stimulate the uptake and further development of these techniques. Extreme events in water security context include the risk of flooding, drought, and pollution.

The concept of risk management in water planning is based on the following: • the knowledge that extreme events will recur • that the severity of the event cannot be predicted in advance • that preparation and planning is necessary to mitigate the range of possible impacts • that mitigation is an on-going process involving structural and non-structural measures • that all water users have a responsibility to manage water as efficiently as possible.

Risk management in water planning seeks to build resilience in water infrastructure through structural and non-structural measures in an on-going process. It requires the development of a clear understanding of what type of extreme event might be expected to happen in the future and take account of what has happened in the past. The likelihood of extreme events has to be considered alongside the estimated impact on people, the economy and the environment. It helps to identify weaknesses in water infrastructure and opportunities for managing impacts by addressing the risk factors.

Risk Management relies on strong evidence to assess the likelihood of extreme events that could jeopardise water security, together with the potential impact and losses to society and the environment. This is achieved by using the best quality information available using predictive models (forecasting) to estimate where extreme events could occur and by reviewing accounts of past events.

These risk based approaches continue to develop in Europe and China and aim to allow the best technical estimations of probability and impact to be assessed. They are based on modelled and statistical appraisals of available information. They should allow decision makers to prioritise and gain maximum water security for known expenditure and timescale.

In a changing climate, and as uncertainty increases, these risk based approaches become more important. As climate change adaptation measures are developed, the assumptions will

Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013 Task A07-1 China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 6 be critical in designing flexible responses and infrastructure solutions. However, these risk based assumptions are only part of the decision making process. Broader political, social and economic considerations are equally important for the final decisions to be taken by well-informed politicians.

1.2.4 Integrated River Basin Management

Integrated river basin management (IRBM) is at the intellectual heart of the EU and Chinese approaches to water management, however, the maturity of approach and extent of application differ.

Isolated measures to improve water security cannot be successful without taking account of what happens upstream and downstream. Integrated river basin management adopts a holistic approach to protecting the whole body of water, its source, tributaries, its main rivers, lakes, and groundwater, through a coordinated strategy involving all the interested parties in decision-making. The river basin approach is acknowledged in Europe as the best way to manage water.

In 2000, the European Union took a ground-breaking step when it adopted the Water Framework Directive (WFD). It introduced a new legislative approach to managing and protecting water, based not on national or political boundaries, but on natural geographical and hydrological formations: river basins. These are known as River Basin Districts. IRBM needs clear coordination and collaboration between administrative authorities and stakeholders within the river basin.

In China IRBM is applied through river basin water resources commissions, for instance the Changjiang Water Resources Commission and the Yellow River Conservancy Commission, but it is hampered by provincial authorities having significant authority over tributaries and limited representation in the commissions. The No.1 Document signals a significant reform in approach and acknowledges the need to include the tributaries in future priorities.

Organisationally there are administrative divides between the Ministry of Water Resources, the Ministry of Environmental Protection, and between the Provinces and other ministries with their own mandates on specific parts of water resources protection and development. Coordination does take place and operational teams do work together but often within complex institutional settings. The EU WFD introduces the concept of a single competent authority to take overall responsibility for river basins to overcome some of these issues.

1.2.5 Links to Spatial Planning

Maintaining water security requires a long term vision and should be integrally linked to spatial planning for urban and regional development in both developing as developed areas. Water resource management is a fundamental element of development planning and should be

Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013 Task A07-1 China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 7 designed into infrastructure projects at an early stage, taking into account the social and economic development opportunities improved water resources can bring. Modelling can test future development scenarios and identify options that could optimise decisions.

However there must be a balance between spatial planning and the availability of water. Planners must realise that the availability of water is not endless and this may be one of the most limiting factors impacting on city and industrial development. Dialogue must be maintained on these issues and options to minimise impact developed. In some cases optimisation of water can bring design innovation in building and in water saving societies. The concept of eco-cities has developed from this dialogue.

Ultimately the availability of water will be limiting and the water planners and regulators may have to say no to further water exploitation in water scarce areas. In the UK the Environment Agency has final say, subject to appeal to Ministers. This is usually via the refusal to grant a permit or by imposing environmentally protective conditions in permits that may render the industry un-economic. Industry then has to decide whether a new installation is viable or not.

The availability of water is determined through the river basin planning process and the monitoring and modelling assessments. Setting river quality objectives and outcomes must allow the minimum standards to allow a healthy river to be clear and technically well defined. Ideally these would be set by the Ministry of Water Resources and backed by legally binding provisions. These could be implemented by the ‘Three Red Lines Policy’ provided the standards are set to provide water security and water resource protection, or the policy is used to progressively tighten standards in a measured sequence. These standards must not be exceeded. In fact most water environment improvement programmes are driven by a progressive tightening of environmental standards, and consequential reviews of permits that will enable these new standards to be met.

1.2.6 Links to Environmental Impact Analysis (EIA)

Environmental Impact Analysis (EIA) is often the mechanism to achieve dialogue and interaction between spatial and water planers. EIA can help to analyse the environmental issues and to communicate options and risks to decision makers, industry and the public.

In Denmark (Section 5) EIA is an integral part of the application and permit determination process for complex permits. The technical information gathered determines the permit conditions and public consultation.

In UK an EIA is usually undertaken in parallel with the permit application process for large installations, especially those under the IPPC Directive. Impacts on air, land and water are considered. It is used to gather information and to facilitate dialogue with all parties.

Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013 Task A07-1 China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 8

EIAs are an important mechanism to logically analyse and communicate issues surrounding the potential impact of a permitted abstraction or discharge, including the wider spatial planning context and sustainability issues. However, an EIA is only as good as the information that it contains, and the consequent protection measures applied via the permit. There are examples where a poor or biased EIA is undertaken by developers, or industry, as a procedural step and is used a ‘tick box’ to press through development without adequate protection. In these cases an EIA can be counter-productive or damaging to the process.

A high quality approach to EIA development and validation is critical to the process.

1.3 Future Trends in Water and Environmental Regulation

Two key elements should be considered here. Firstly the move towards Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC); and secondly the simplification and reform of regulation, through initiatives such as the UK Modern Regulation initiative.

‘Modern regulation aims to find the right balance – a proportionate, risk-based response, that will drive environmental improvements, reward good performance, but still provide the ultimate reassurance that tough action will be taken on those who fail to meet acceptable standards.’

It makes the case for modernisation of regulation with the following:

‘Traditional regulation has achieved much. But the nature of regulation has to change to keep pace with changes in the economy and society. We are further developing our approach to regulation to improve and protect the environment. Our approach is outcome-focused and risk-based, clearly communicated and is delivered in a consistent manner.’

The Environment Agency paper suggests

‘Any modern regulatory regime must meet five principles. It must be:

 transparent – we must have rules and processes which are clear to those in businesses and local communities  accountable – we must explain ourselves and our performance  consistent – we must apply the same approach within and between sectors and over time  proportionate (or risk-based) – we must allocate resources according to the risks involved and the scale of outcomes which can be achieved  targeted (or outcome-focused) – the environmental outcome must be central to our planning and in assessing our performance.

Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013 Task A07-1 China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 9

We also believe regulations must be practicable. The regulators need to be funded to let them do their job and it must be clear to businesses what they have to do.’

The model can be summarised with the following Figure 1.3.1 from the report.

Figure 1.3.1 Overview of Modern Regulation – Environment Agency

Regulatory method can also be selected from a regulatory tool box approach, selecting the most efficient and effective option to achieve the outcomes. Figure 1.3.2 represents these options

Figure 1.3.2 Regulatory Options – Environment Agency

These principles could be applied to the review of permits in China and may form a useful approach in developing a business case for ensuring reform and revision of the proposed permitting processes that would be acceptable for government and industry in this growth phase China is experiencing.

Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013 Task A07-1 China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 10

1.4 Project Working Method

The short and intensive programme was jointly developed with MWR to exchange knowledge on regulation and permitting practices. The approach which evolved was unconventional and sits outside the normal environmental and engineering consultancy sphere. All involved have learnt important lessons that will be of significance to future work in China and Europe. In many respects the process of knowledge exchange with the team and the wider water resource community was more important than this written report. The report structure and content reflects the dialogue and emphasises those issues thought important by the team.

Two European experts were involved; Martin Griffiths, from the UK, spent time in China and Palle Grevy, from Denmark, who worked from his home base. As a consequence examples provided are largely from UK and Denmark, but are set in a broader European context. In addition examples of water abstraction and water quality are provided from UK, Denmark, France, Germany and the Netherlands. These will be part of an electronic annex.

A Chinese team, led by Dong Yanfei, Director of the International Department of the Ministry of Water resources was set up. Much of the drafting work in the section on the current Chinese Approach to Water Permitting was written by Dr Cheng Dongsheng of the Institute of Water and Hydraulic Research.

All were engaged in the discussion and development of the Chapter on Proposals for Review and Reform of Water Permits in China.

The European expert, Martin Griffiths worked in the MWR office to allow intensive interaction and joint development and exchange on the project and on a wide range of day to day issues. This allowed one to one working and joint development and understanding of themes. The development of the report was used as the main theme of discussion and joint development of ideas, with the overall objective of developing a fully shared view of issues and permitting options for China.

From this core activity opportunities were taken to contribute to training courses for Water Resource Managers from across China. These included two workshops on integrated permitting, one in Jiangsu on 7 May 2013 for southern China and one in Hu'lun'bei'er, Inner Mongolia, on 24 September 2013 for northern China, with a total of about 500 participants.

Two senior water resources managers were interned into the Nature Agency in Denmark for a month, culminating in attendance at the Word Water Summit in Budapest, Hungary, in October 2013. Their internship programme was focussed on aspects of this permitting study, in a wide EU policy and operational context.

A structured training programme to Hungary, UK and Denmark in October 2013 was aligned with this study. It enabled delegates to see some of the elements of water resource regulation highlighted in this report.

Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013 Task A07-1 China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 11

Finally, a summary of these findings was presented at the CEWP High Level Conference, held in association with the Budapest Water Summit which ran from the 8th to 11th October 2013.

Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013 Task A07-1 China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 12

2 Institutional Arrangements in Europe

2.1 Overview

Water management across Europe has developed at various speeds and has taken different forms based on history, pace of economic growth, legal frameworks, geography and the complexity of some international river basins.

Since the 1970’s the EU has developed a legislative framework that progressively aligned European approaches and adopted best practice. This culminated in the development and adoption of the Water Framework Directive. Within this regulatory framework space has been maintained for individual Member States to achieve the essential water resource outcomes using methods and solutions best suited to their situation. It provides for some ‘creative tensions’ and encourages national ownership, that can lead to innovative approaches and achieve the agreed outcomes. These principles of devolution, subsidiarity and sovereignty are important to the success of the EU approach.

Similar principles may apply to the Chinese situation where geographic size, provincial administrations, social diversity and other issues may require similar devolved approaches to implementation.

2.2 Sovereignty and principles of subsidiarity in EU environmental legislation

Since the first treaties for establishing the European Community there has been a discussion of the legislative power of the Union at the expense of the sovereignty of the national member states. Most member states were originally comfortable with the allocation of powers to the Community in general and power over environmental questions in particular. However, Britain, well known both for its practically unrivalled sensitivity on questions of national sovereignty and its previously unenviable position as the “dirty man of Europe” managed in one the earliest treaties (the Maastricht Treaty) to introduce the principle of subsidiarity. The British

Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013 Task A07-1 China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 13 government and others have hereafter frequently invoked the subsidiarity principle against Community environmental legislative proposals2.

The subsidiarity principle has been adopted as a concept which means that legislative initiatives as far as possible are left for implementation by the national member states. The distribution of competencies between the Commission and the member states are today often referred to as “pool of sovereignty” That is especially the case for EU environmental legislation including EU water management.

The Water Framework Directive (WFD), which for the last 13 years has been the stabilising backbone of water management in the EU is an excellent example. It is continuously under implementation in 29 member states and it is clear how to implement it, taking into account a major number of comprehensive guidance document describing how to do it. But the period for timely implementation of the Directive was set to approximately 15 years. Apparently at least 5 years more are needed.

Some of the basic activities the WFD are concerned with:

 Appointing appropriate competent river basin authorities  Identification and description of river basins  Transposition of legislation  Adoption of objectives and inter-calibrated standards  Provision of river basin management plans  Monitoring  Permitting  Enforcement

But in general terms the WFD asks three conceptual questions to be answered for river basins over a period of time:  What is the present situation regarding legislation, status on water quality, resources and pressures from society? It means that a base-line description of river basins shall be prepared  Where do we want to go and what shall be achieved in the future? It means that a plan and objectives to be achieved shall be prepared taking the future development of society into account  How do we reach the planned objectives and expected achievements? It means that a programme of measures, budgets for implementation and enforcement activities shall be prepared.

2 Rewriting from “Sovereignty and subsidiarity in EU environmental Policy”. Jonathan Golub. Political studies, 1996, XLIV pp. 686-703

Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013 Task A07-1 China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 14

Even if it is clear, what to do, then the subsidiarity principle makes the national approaches on implementation of the WFD a patchwork of individual solutions and it is not possible to present an unanimously organisation model for water management in EU – only for the processing. On the other hand the management approach based on subsidiarity applied in EU might be an inspiration in other countries like China with a complex set up of institutions and authorities with conflicting competences and interests.

2.3 Competent Authority Role

The implementation of European directives requires that a ‘competent body’ or competent bodies’ are nominated in each Member State that are capable and competent to implement the EU Directives correctly. This competent body is responsible or taking the lead and ensuring that the directive is implemented, working with other partners as required.

For most EU directives ideally one competent body is nominated, but for some complex directives such as the WFD a number of bodies may be nominated. Across Europe there are a number of bodies that take the lead on water resource protection. They have a range of functions and constitutions, mostly the result of history, political expedience and environmental focus of each Member State. Few have a totally logical constitution and are negotiated and developed over time. In the UK the Environment Agency is the sole competent authority for most environmental directives, including the WFD. In Denmark the Environment Agency is responsible for preparing River Basin Management plans, but the competent authority role is more complex and is spread across a number of organisations. Their role is well defined and understood.

An overall approach for public state administration in many EU countries relies on a tripartite hierarchic delegation of responsibilities among authorities where the hierarchy shall ensure and control that conflicting activities of administration may arise. Taking into account a lot of exemptions it can be said that  Provision of national legislation and programmes shall be provided only by governments and ministries  Provision of plans and programmes shall be prepared by regional authorities  Operation and implementation of regional plans and programmes (of measures) shall be done by tertiary community authorities

Expressed in more legal terms and with specific regard to implementation of the WFD it can be said that River Basin Districts are the main units for management of river basins as specified in Article 3.1 for which regional competent River Basin Authorities need to be identified for each national River Basin Districts as described in Article 3.2 and as well for shared international River Basin Districts as described in Article 3.3. Through Article 3.4 and Article 3.5 there is a requirement to co-ordinate the actions (nationally and internationally) to

Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013 Task A07-1 China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 15 achieve the planned environmental objectives established by the Article 4 through implementation of the planned Programme of Measures in accordance with requirements of Article 11. The extent of allocation of responsibilities to tertiary community authorities to implement and later to operate the programme of measures depend very much on locally generated tax revenue, income from water tariffs and state subsidies.

Taking the overall approach for a tripartite delegation of responsibilities, the history behind institutions and the principle of subsidiarity into account the nomination of competent river basin authorities has in many countries been distributed among existing authorities already involved in national water management. In other countries new specific river basin authorities have been introduced. The complexity of approaches in selected countries will be described in the following section.

2.4 River basin management in Europe

Designation of River Basin Districts is one of the core aspects of the integrated river basin management approach delineating the geographical extent for the co-ordination and management of water resources. The principle of holistic water management at the catchment level is based on hydrologic boundaries and only seldom coherent with administrative boundaries of existing authorities. In response to the designation of River Basin Districts new competent authorities had to be appointed for each District including the part of any international River Basin District lying within their territory.

128 River Basin Districts have been specified in EU3 for implementation of the WFD. 49 of them are international and shared either between two or several EU states or non-member states bordering EU. The institutional arrangements with regard to assigning competent River Basin Authorities have been correspondingly overwhelming and have created a broad specter of interplay between new and existing institutions all over EU.

Some Member States have adapted their water administrations to ensure better implementation of the WFD. That is for instance the case in Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Luxembourg, Latvia and Sweden. They have established new authorities as a result of the WFD. However, in the vast majority of cases there has been no adaptation of existing structures to support the implementation of the Directive.

3 Source: WISE

Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013 Task A07-1 China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 16

From 112 River Basin Management Plans4 it can be seen that one single authority is responsible for the implementation of all WFD activities in 23 River Basin Districts Most often this main authority is the Ministry of Environment.

New River Basin District Authorities have been established for the purposes of the WFD in some member states, such as in e.g. Sweden, the Czech Republic and Bulgaria.

Competences are split between different authorities with responsibilities on different water management related issues in 84 River basin Management Plans or 20 Member States. Examples of such divisions are established between regional authorities in Poland, and if federal states are considered as regional authorities, then it is also the case in Germany and Belgium.

In 12 out of 112 cases different authorities are responsible for specific water categories, most commonly for coastal waters versus inland waters, but in some cases there are also different authorities for groundwater compared to surface waters.

It is often the case that one competent authority (whether national, regional, or basin specific) is responsible for core water management issues (water supply, waste water treatment, permitting, reporting, spatial planning, nature conservation, agriculture, navigation, energy and fisheries). This approach shall be seen in the context that the full implementation of the WFD and provision of programme of measures shall encompass a concurrent implementation of 11 related water management Directives on:

 Urban waste-water treatment (UWWT)  Drinking water  Nitrates  Sewage sludge  Habitats  Bathing water  Birds  Major accidents  Environmental impact assessment  Plant protection products  Integrated pollution prevention control

How competencies for concurrent implementation of water directives are distributed vary between member states.

4 COM (2012) 670 final. Commission staff working document on the implementation of the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC)

Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013 Task A07-1 China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 17

2.5 Enforcement and control

Article 11.3 (WFD) sets out a number of basic WFD water related measures to be controlled. These parameters must be reviewed periodically so that the environmental objectives can be reached (Article 11.5). The governance mechanisms for different types of water related permits are very much based on different mechanisms in the different Member States.

A basic concept for control and regulation of permits is based on monitoring in accordance with specification of permits and as required to assessing the status of the environment. Nevertheless issuing of permits and monitoring is not always done by the same authority and sometimes the two activities are distributed among institutions at different levels of administration as shown in figure 2.5.1

Figure 2.5.1: Division of responsibility for monitoring as well as water related permits at different levels of administration. (By numbers of Member States)

Where more than one authority is responsible for issuing permits, there are usually co-ordination mechanisms in place.

Member States are also required to determine penalties applicable to breaches of the WFD as written into national laws, that are effective, proportionate and dissuasive (WFD Article 23). Member States have a variety of approaches in organizing enforcement activities across their territories. Only a few countries have organized enforcement activities along river basin scales. The few examples are Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania and Spain, where administrative bodies at RBD or sub-basin level have enforcement powers. In most EU countries the same administrative authorities are responsible for enforcement of permits across different sectors

Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013 Task A07-1 China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 18 though some differences are seen for IPPC permits. In other cases there are differences depending on the type of activity or the scale of the activity.

The local and regional authorities play a large role in the enforcement of water permits and in several Member States the enforcement authority is also the permitting authority. A number of Member States have specific environmental inspectorates, and the police forces may be an additional enforcement institution as for instance in Denmark.

There is no ‘one-size-fits-all’ solution be found on permitting and control in EU member states. The subsidiarity principle is the main driver for establishing the relevant national institutional set-up.

2.6 International co-ordination and co-operation

The complexity in distribution of management responsibilities within the water sector is further underlined by the obligation to make river basin management plans for international river basins. 60% of the EU territory is covered by international river basins, and 55 of the 112 RBDs are considered international. An overview of the existing RBDs in EU is shown in Figure 2.6.1. The pink colored districts refer to international districts shared between several states, while the light-green colored areas refer to national RBDs. It can immediately be seen that the international RBDs dominate the area of EU.

Member States 'shall ensure co-ordination with a view of producing a single RBMP' when the RBDs are international. Where a third country shares a river basin with an EU Member State5, the Member State “shall endeavour to produce” such a plan (WFD Article 13). ‘For international river basin districts the Member States concerned shall together ensure this co-ordination’ (WFD Article 3.4).

5 The UNECE Water Convention: Convention on the Protection and Use of Transboundary Watercourses and International Lakes

Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013 Task A07-1 China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 19

Figure 2.6.1. Map of national and international river basin districts in EU Ver. 29. October 20126

International RBMPs have been adopted in catchments like the larger Danube, Rhine, Elbe, Scheldt, Odra, Meuse, Ems basins but also in smaller basins shared by the UK and Ireland. Co-operation is generally less developed in smaller trans-boundary catchments where there is no co-ordinating body or agreements in place.

In some international river basins there has been extensive co-operation for many years, such as in the Odra7, the Elbe8, and in the Rhine9, where there has been important progress on

6 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/facts_figures/index_en.htm 7 Odra Convention, ICPO. In force 1996. Signed by Czech Republic, Germany and Poland

Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013 Task A07-1 China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 20 pollution reduction, and the establishment of hydromorphological measures that has, for instance, led to salmon once again being reintroduced. Most international river conventions have since they were acceded been amended to fulfil the role of co-ordination of the implementation of the WFD, for instance in the Danube basin. Danube basin is the most international District in the world as it covers 19 countries. The Danube Convention, International Commission on the Protection of the Danube River (ICPDR), was taken into force in 1998 and has today 15 contracting parties: Austria, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Germany, Hungary, Moldova, Montenegro, Romania, Slovakia, Serbia, Slovenia, Ukraine and the European Commission. Management of Danube basin is given much intention in EU in consequence of the extension of the area and the number of stakeholder countries. Management of the basin is not only directed towards clean water but also the use of water as a resource. In addition coordination is about keeping the river open for navigation. Earlier the lack of cooperation on these issues caused severe conflicts, as several of the countries within the basin are land locked.

Of the 112 RBMPs which have been prepared, 66 RBMPs were reported as ‘international’ with river basins shared between Member States or Member States and third countries and co-ordination has taken place on a number of specific requirements of the WFD Directive. For instance measures related to key trans-boundary water management issues like river continuity, nutrient reduction and chemical pollution are indicated as being coordinated in around 40% of the RBMPs. 40% of the international RBMPs also indicate that there are trans-boundary monitoring programmes for shared rivers and just over 20% for shared groundwater. The relatively high percentage of RBMPs reporting co-operation on public participation and co-ordination is due to the outreach and consultation activities undertaken by the International River Commissions such as the International Commission on the Protection of the Danube River (ICPDR).

2.7 Best practice on water management in EU

Water management in EU has in the preceding sections been described based on a statistical cross country approach deduced from 112 RBMPs prepared by 29 member states over a 13 year period.

Emphasis has been made on some core elements considered to be essential for a successful implementation of the WFD. The description shows a patchwork of individual, national solutions on how to implement legislation, how to delegate responsibilities as competent authorities among institutions, how to organise enforcement and control functions among institutions and how to organise co-ordination and co-operation in international river basins.

8 Elbe Convention, ICPE, In force 1992, Signed by Czech Republic and Germany 9 Rhine Convention, ICPR. In force 2003. Signed by Schweiz, Germany, Luxembourg and Netherland

Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013 Task A07-1 China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 21

The variability of national practices on implementation of the WFD raises the question: What are the best practices? Right now there are no criteria for evaluating best practises except those which most efficiently implement the objectives on at least good water status in water bodies in accordance with the national RBM planning.

To understand this it is a precondition to know how European legislation is created. EU is still more or less an association of independent countries where most institutions have a long story and where administrating organisations have built up a tradition on environmental administration practise in accordance with national needs. EU legislation cannot for political reasons change the national sovereignty of member states on that. Instead the principle of subsidiarity has been adopted and must be respected by the EU Commission - meaning that decisions which only are of national importance shall be made by the national states. That is the case regarding the institutional set-up and administration practises in national member states for implementation of the WFD and accordingly it is not possible to present an unanimously organisation model for water management in EU.

Actually, implementation of the requirements of the WFD is progressing steadily all over Europe and if organisation models on water management are described for each country it will turn out that an institutional set-up and administration practises are in place in most countries to handle the legal requirements. What to be done is clear. It is only the way it is done, that differs.

2.8 Environmental Protection Agencies and Equivalent

Across Europe there are a number of bodies that take the lead on water resource protection. The have a range of functions and constitutions, mostly the result of history, political expedience and environmental focus of each Member State. Few have a totally logical constitution and their structure and function has been negotiated and developed over time.

2.8.1 Breadth of function Some agencies have a narrow function and may only have responsibilities for water. Others have wide functionality and may be closely aligned with local authorities. Others may have duties such as forestry, landscape and heritage added to the environmental portfolio.

Some have national responsibilities and others may be more federal based. The US EPA and the devolved State jurisdictions are the classic example.

Some agencies are predominantly policy and strategy based, whereas others have significant operational roles. The Environment Agency in the UK has approximately 2000 water resources and pollution control staff. It also holds one of the largest remaining directly employed labour forces in the UK public sector. This is used for its flood defence role,

Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013 Task A07-1 China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 22 including responsibilities ranging from the Thames Flood Barrier control and maintenance, to clearing out small rivers and ditches to reduce flooding, but importantly it provides the capability to deal with flooding and other environmentally damaging events, including pollution incident management

2.8.2 Air, Land and Water Many agencies have wider environmental responsibilities and the current trend is for Environment Agencies or Environment Protection Agencies to take the overview of air, land water and waste protection and regulation. The Rio Earth Summit in 1992 brought a critical change in thinking and the issues of sustainability and the Bruntland Report10 definitions were brought into mainstream thinking. Influenced by this, the UK created the Environment Agency in 1995, with responsibilities for air, land, water and waste.

Permitting practice for water abstraction and water quality have broadly remained separate functions, within an integrated approach to water management. Permit reviews take place on a risk basis, if changes to statutory objectives (EU or UK) require a change, or if permit holders request a review or change.

For large installations the Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC) regime has allowed for integrated ‘installation’ based permit review, taking into account Best Available Technology (BAT) approaches, for Air, Land and Water to be introduced according to the PPC Regulations11.

The UK Environment Agency is currently introducing a new Environmental Permitting12 regime which will progressively bring air, land and water permitting activity into one common format.

2.8.3 The Case for Independent Water Regulation

There is a strong case for water and environmental regulation to be independent of political intervention. This would include the setting of standards in the water environment, monitoring, permitting and reporting. The case can be made that water is too important to leave to emotive interventions from government and politicians, however this is rarely achieved in practice.

Many Environment Agencies and water regulatory organisations are part of government and for example the Danish EPA is directly part of the Department of the Environment. This is

10 Our Common Future, also known as the Brundtland Report, from the United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED), 1987 11 The Pollution Prevention and Control (England and Wales) Regulations 2000 12 The Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2010

Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013 Task A07-1 China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 23 common in many countries and allows water issues to be resolved within and across government departments. But it can be influenced by political intervention.

In the UK, the Environment Agency has been set up to be ‘independent’ from government departments to limit political intervention. One of its primary responsibilities is to ‘report on the state of the environment’ and to provide ‘independent’ advice to Ministers on environmental issues. Ministers are consulted on policy issues and ultimately set environmental objectives on advice from the Agency. The Environment Agency then ‘independently’ sets permit limits to ensure that the objectives are met. However, this not a pure model and independence is limited. The Governing Board is appointed by Ministers and Environment Agency requires some direct financial support from government.

2.8.4 Funding

There are a number of funding models ranging from full state funding to various levels of cost recovery to allow the agencies to undertake their functions.

Following the principle of ‘polluter pays’, many agencies attain full cost recovery for their work related to permitting, including administration, monitoring, reporting and enforcement. In some cases this is used to gain revenue for wider water resource management activities, including water resource development, capital investment in water management infrastructure and research and development.

The case has also been made that, charging beyond cost recovery constitutes a tax on pollution, raising other complications including pressure on industry. However, the French Agence de l'eau operates a system of reallocation of permit charges to assist with water infrastructure improvement within river basins in France. Similar arrangements are seen in the use of Landfill Tax in the UK, with money being reallocated to development of new landfill sites, minimising the impact of old sites and improving the local environment in the vicinity.

2.9 UK Environment Agency

In the UK the Environment Agency has the primary duty to protect and improve the environment, and to promote sustainable development. It has a central role in delivering the environmental priorities of central government. The Environment Act 1995, http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1995/25/contents/enacted created an integrated Environment Agency with responsibilities for air land and water, and waste; from the previous National Rivers Authority with sole responsibility for water, and other partners

From the Environment Act the :

Principal aim and objectives of the Agency

Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013 Task A07-1 China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 24

(1)It shall be the principal aim of the Agency in discharging its functions so to protect or enhance the environment, taken as a whole, so as to make the contribution towards attaining the objective of achieving sustainable development

The Environment Agency is the UK government’s agent to deliver environmental protection and to enact UK and European water and environmental legislation. The Environment Agency is the UK Competent Authority for the delivery of most of the EU Directives, including the Water Framework Directive. In this role it takes the lead in implementing directives and works with others to ensure the correct outcomes.

It outlines its approach to environmental protection in its corporate plan which can be found at :- http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/aboutus/131960.aspx

The budget for the Environment Agency in 2012 was £1.2 billion and Figure 2.9.1 provides a breakdown. In principle the agency derives its water funding from two principal streams, Charge income from water quality and water resource licences, on a cost recovery basis only. This is linked to the polluter pays principle. The rest is derived from ‘Gant in Aid’ from its sponsoring department DEFRA. The grant in aid element generally covers the ‘public good’ requirement for monitoring the state of the environment and elements of cost that cannot be attributed to the polluters. There is no element of charging for water, or taxation in this funding base.

It should be noted that the Flood Risk element distorts the expenditure profile of the UK Environment Agency. This is heavily biased towards capital flood defence construction projects which are largely government funded through grant in aid. Other contributions come from local authorities and charging.

Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013 Task A07-1 China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 25

Figure 2.9.1 Environment Agency Funding 2012

2.10 IMPEL Network - best practice across EU regulators

IMPEL http://impel.eu/ is the European Union Network for the Implementation and Enforcement of Environmental Law (IMPEL). It is an international non-profit association of the environmental authorities of the European Union Member States, acceding and candidate countries of the EU, EEA and EFTA countries.

This is an extract from its web site ;

The association is registered in Belgium and both its legal seat and its Secretariat are in Bruxelles, Belgium. Currently IMPEL has 47 members from 33 countries including all EU Member States, Croatia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkey, Iceland, Switzerland and Norway.

IMPEL was set up in 1992 as an informal Network of European regulators and authorities concerned with the implementation and enforcement of environmental law. The Network’s objective is to create the necessary impetus in the European Union to make progress on ensuring a more effective application of environmental legislation. The core of the IMPEL

Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013 Task A07-1 China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 26 activities concerns awareness raising, capacity building, peer review, exchange of information and experiences on implementation, international enforcement collaboration as well as promoting and supporting the practicability and enforceability of European environmental legislation. The Association undertakes its activities primarily within a project structure. IMPEL has developed into a considerable, widely known organisation, being mentioned in a number of EU legislative and policy documents, e.g. the Decision No 1600/2002/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 July 2002 laying down the Sixth Community Environment Action Programme 6th EU Environment Action Programme, the Recommendation 2001/331/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 April 2001 providing for minimum criteria for environmental inspections in the Member States (RMCEI), the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on implementing European Community Environmental Law and the European Commission Impact Assessment Guidelines.

2.11 European Environment Agency

The European Environment Agency (EEA) is an agency of the European Union. Its task is to provide sound, independent information on the environment. It provides a major information source for those involved in developing, adopting, implementing and evaluating environmental policy, and also for the general public. Currently, the EEA has 33 member countries.

In general The EEA is not engaged in Member State regulatory issues or permitting, however, it is seen as a critical component necessary for environmental management and to judge the effectiveness and outcomes of regulation. In this way it enables new issues and risks to be identified which may require regulatory action across the EU. It also allows an independent reporting mechanism and comparisons to be made across Member States.

EEA's mandate is:

 To help the Community and member countries make informed decisions about improving the environment, integrating environmental considerations into economic policies and moving towards sustainability  To coordinate the European environment information and observation network (Eionet)

Its main clients are the European Union institutions — the European Commission, the European Parliament, the Council — and our member countries. In addition to this central group of European policy actors, we also serve other EU institutions such as the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions.

Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013 Task A07-1 China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 27

The business community, academia, non-governmental organisations and other parts of civil society are also important users of our information. We try to achieve two-way communication with our clients in order to correctly identify their information needs, and make sure that the information provided is understood and taken up by them.

The regulation establishing the EEA was adopted by the European Union in 1990. It came into force in late 1993 immediately after the decision was taken to locate the EEA in Copenhagen. Work started in earnest in 1994. The regulation also established the European environment information and observation network (Eionet).

Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013 Task A07-1 China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 28

3 Setting Environmental Standards and Environmental Monitoring

3.1 River Basin Planning

Water permitting needs to be seen as a fundamental element of a comprehensive river basin planning process. The need for a permit, and the standards in the permit, must to reflect the objectives set in the water body impacted.

This is usually done via a river basin planning review and the EU Water Framework Directive (WFD planning cycle is an example of this. The WFD lays down a six year process for undertaking this that has been developed and endorsed across the EU. Figure 3.1.1 provides a summary the process developed for the WFD to set Environmental Objectives, to design the measures needed, including the permit standards. This leads to the development of an improvement programme, known as the ‘programme of measures’ in the WFD.

Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013 Task A07-1 China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 29

Figure 3.1.1 Relationship between river basin planning, monitoring and the programmes of measures Source - Scottish Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA), 2002, Future for Scotland’s Waters

The permit standards are calculated from river basin modelling exercises, which through mass balance calculations can assess options and scenarios for achieving objectives in the most cost effective way. Once provisional permit standards have been calculated an improvement programme (in the EUWFD this is known as the Programme of Measures) can be developed. It would be usual for industry to be given early knowledge of any improvements needed and notice of new permit standards. Three to five years is often considered reasonable. New permits may then be issued, often with a timescale for attaining the new standards.

The WFD process is risk based and takes into account the pressures and impacts on a river basin. The main aim of the planning process is to set objectives in all water bodies via a consultative process. Ultimately objectives are set and endorsed by Member States, In the UK, the Environment Agency as the Competent Authority manages the process and advises Ministers. Ultimately Ministers set the water quality objectives, which in terms of the WFD are normally set at Good Status, or may be derogated after economic and societal tests.

It is these objectives that drive investment and infrastructure costs within the river basin plan. This is why in the UK Ministers make this informed decision, but in a political context. Ministers can also influence timescales for achievement and the options within a catchment to achieve these.

Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013 Task A07-1 China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 30

3.2 The Objectives and Water Standards

The river objectives can take a number of forms. In the EU these tended to be ‘use based’ standards related to anthropogenic exploitation. For example,

Class 1 High = Water supply with minimum treatment, highland river, salmonid fisheries Class 2 Good = Water supply with primary treatment, salmonid Fisheries Class 3 Medium = Water supply with full treatment, lowland river, coarse fishery, high amenity Class 4 Poor = Water supply with advanced treatment, intermittent coarse fishery Class 5 Bad = Not suitable for public water supply, no nuisance.

Associated with these there would be predominantly chemical standards relating to mostly sanitary determinants, such as BOD or COD, suspended solids and ammonia. These were progressively tightened, often in response to EU Directives, such as the Drinking Water Abstraction Directive (75/440/EEC) and the Freshwater Fish Directive (78/659/EEC). The Dangerous Substances Directive, (76/464) added parameters for persistent and dangerous substances, such as mercury, cadmium and DDT.

Similar standards have been developed relating to river flow, especially minimum flows and ‘hands off flow’. It is these that determine water abstraction from rivers, especially in low flow periods. These are often related to environmental flow regimes.

China has similar standards today in the form of the Water Functional Zones and the implementation of the Three Red Lines Policy – see Section 5 below

The EUWFD introduced ecological objectives into the regulatory process, raising the standards in many waters. These objectives are set on a five class system shown in Figure 3.2.1 below

Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013 Task A07-1 China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 31

Figure 3.2.1 Overview of the EUWFD Classes

Behind the objectives a suite of chemical and flow ‘surrogate’ standards have been developed following significant and on-going research programmes across the EU. These allow the numbers needed to calculate permit standards in abstraction and discharge activities.

It should be noted that the aim of the Directive is to achieve Good Status. For this reason accurate determination of the good to moderate boundary is essential as this drives permit standards and infrastructure costs. The Commission has recognised this and as gone to great lengths to ensure equality of standards across the Member States and has undertaken the intercalibration exercise shown on the figure.

3.3 Monitoring

Comprehensive and well-designed monitoring programmes are an essential part of water planning and regulation, but the detail is beyond the scope of this study. Monitoring programmes usually evolve and are refined from previous practice and knowledge of water catchments. Programmes must be designed to provide the evidence to support decision making and are increasingly risk based.

The monitoring of rivers, lakes and ground waters needs to be linked to monitoring of permitted abstraction discharges and increasingly these elements are optimised to make effective use of resources.

Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013 Task A07-1 China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 32

The EUWFD provides a framework for this and the Common Implementation Strategy Guidance Document No. 7 on Monitoring has been developed to ensure continuity of monitoring across the EU Member States https://circabc.europa.eu/faces/jsp/extension/wai/navigation/container.jsp

Box 1 is an extract from the UK Environment Agency monitoring programme.

BOX 1 Environment Agency UK WFD Monitoring

Monitoring will be required to classify water bodies, improve risk assessments and programmes of measures. The monitoring programme will cover all surface waters, groundwaters, groundwater dependant wetlands and protected areas. For each water body we will monitor a range of parameters including:  biology (phytoplankton, diatoms, macrophytes, invertebrates and fish)  hydromorphology  physico-chemical (including pollutants)  priority and priority-hazardous substances. Data from the monitoring programme will be used in all stages of the river basin planning cycle to:  classify all waterbodies according to their ecological and chemical status  refine the risk assessments to improve our understanding of possible threats to the environment  drive programmes of measures to identify why a waterbody is failing its objective and determine what action is needed. Our WFD monitoring programme was reported to the European Commission through the Water Information System for Europe (WISE) website in March 2007.

Under the Water Framework Directive, surveillance, operational and investigative monitoring techniques are required. We have also introduced additional forms of monitoring to meet the needs of the Directive.  surveillance - to identify long term changes, trends, and inform future monitoring networks. In these waterbodies we will undertake the full range of monitoring. We expect this network of surveillance sites to remain fixed  operational - to help classify water bodies which are at risk of failing to meet objectives. The monitoring in these waterbodies is tailored to assess the pressures and risks identified. The coverage of operational monitoring will change over time  investigative - to assess why a waterbody is failing to achieve its objectives and decide what action is needed. The investigative programme will be designed when we have the initial results from the operational and surveillance monitoring  groundwater monitoring - to determine the quantitative status of groundwater bodies  protected area monitoring - will be carried out in surface and ground waters used for the abstraction of drinking water; habitat and species protection areas designated under the Habitats Directive, or any other protected area established by EU legislation. Monitoring already established for these reasons will be incorporated into operational programmes

Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013 Task A07-1 China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 33

Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013 Task A07-1 China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 34

4 EU/ UK Approach to Water Permitting In this section we will examine the key principles of water permitting using the UK as the primary example. In Section 5 elements of the Danish system are detailed in order to show that although the principles are the same, different approaches can be taken to achieve common outcomes in terms of water resources.

This section focusses on the single issue water abstraction and water quality permitting systems. Complex installations are permitted under the PPC Directive regime where air, land water and waste issues are considered in a single permit. More information on this is covered in the Danish approach in Section 5.

In the UK, permitting systems are converging towards a common approach and a new Environmental Permitting framework is being introduced progressively in the UK. This is referenced in Section 4.11

4.1 Water Framework Directive The EU water directives underpin much of the water resource protection regulation activity across Europe. Member States can choose how they implement this provided the minimum requirements are met. Permitting is one of the core tools used to ensure compliance with EU and domestic standards.

The main aim of EU water policy is to ensure that throughout the EU a sufficient quantity of good quality water is available for people’s needs and for the environment. Since the 1970s, through a variety of measures, the EU has worked hard to create an effective and coherent water policy.

In 2000 the Water Framework Directive (WFD) established a legal basis to protect and restore clean water across Europe and ensure its long-term, sustainable use. The general objective of the WFD is to get all water — for example, lakes, rivers, streams and groundwater aquifers — into a healthy state by 2015.

Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013 Task A07-1 China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 35

4.2 EU Water Blueprint

The water framework directive has been updated and focussed on new water resource challenges by the EU Water Blueprint 2012. The EU describes the Water Blueprint as follows:

‘The achievement of EU water policy goals is threatened by a number of old and emerging challenges, including water pollution, water abstraction for agriculture and energy production, land use and the impacts of climate change.

The EU’s policy response to these challenges is the forthcoming 2012 Blueprint to safeguard Europe’s water resources. The overall objective of the Blueprint is to improve EU water policy to ensure good quality water, in adequate quantities, for all authorised uses. The Blueprint will encourage a move towards what we call ‘prevention and preparedness’. It will ensure a sustainable balance between water demand and supply, taking into account the needs of both people and the natural ecosystems they depend on.

The Blueprint’s policy recommendations will be based on the results of the following ongoing assessments.

 Analysis of the WFD’s river basin management plans: giving information on how Member States have improved their water management.

 Review of the 2007 policy on water scarcity and drought:

o including water efficiency measures.

o The evolution of water resources:

 water’s vulnerability to climate change and man-made pressures such as urbanisation and land use.

 Outcome of the fitness check of EU freshwater policy:

o a gap analysis to identify any uncovered areas and assess the adequacy of the current framework.

The results of these four reviews, together with other EU studies, will provide knowledge to help better implementation of EU water policy.

4.3 UK Water Law The importance of access to water and water rights in the UK has been recognised through history. It has been so important that significant elements of the UK Common Law framework have been developed from the need to resolve water issues, particularly the impoundment of

Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013 Task A07-1 China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 36 water and protecting downstream water rights. This was later extended to pollution and water quality issues, especially during the industrial revolution.

These Common Law water rights have been progressively superseded by Civil Laws based on Statutes passed by parliament, such as the Water Resources Acts 1991 and the Water Act 2003. However, these Common Law rights to abstract water ‘in perpetuity’ still remain to some extent, but under the current water scarce situation, these are being progressively revaluated and removed, usually with compensation payment.

In simplistic terms, the water laws in the UK make it a criminal offence to abstract or impound water, or to discharge ‘noxious, poisonous or solid matter into controlled waters’.

The permits provide a defence against this ‘primary offence’. Therefore the permit should be considered as a valuable asset for the operator, protecting him from prosecution, provided he operates within the conditions set in the permit.

The Environment Agency (or the Scottish Environment Protection Agency in Scotland) is the nominated government body with a duty to ‘protect and enhance the water environment’. In undertaking this duty it is empowered to set permits, monitor, enforce and report compliance. It can also reclaim its costs in undertaking these functions.

An overview and listing of the key water legislation can be found on the Environment Agency Website at http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/business/142645.aspx

4.4 UK Permits13

In UK the water abstraction and water quality permits have been subject to parallel development via successive water acts, and largely retain their separation. However UK is progressively converging these systems and ultimately integrated permits will be issued, on a site, or installation, basis.

For the purposes of this report water abstraction and water quality permits will be regarded separately. This is because the majority of permits in force are separate and have been issued under separate legislation.

It should also be noted that in the UK a narrow definition of Water Resources is used that tends to be restricted to water quantity, and water abstraction and impoundment. Water quality or pollution control refers to effluent discharge and water chemistry.

13 The terms permit, licences and consents are used interchangeably in the UK and depend on legislative terminology. Permit or permitting is becoming the accepted generic term and we will use this throughout this report.

Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013 Task A07-1 China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 37

4.4.1 Water Quantity/Water Resources

The Water Resources Act 1991 as amended by the Water Act 2003 is the core statute regulating water quantity and water impoundment, in England and Wales

The Water Resources Act 1991

The Water Resources Act 1991 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1991/57/contents Is the primary statutory controlling statute for the abstraction and impounding of water. It requires a licence to carry out these activities, although some activities are exempt.

From the Act there absolute restrictions on the abstraction of water unless a licence or permit is in place:-

Restrictions on abstraction

(1)Subject to the following provisions of this Chapter and to any drought order under Chapter III of this Part, no person shall—

(a) abstract water from any source of supply; or

(b) cause or permit any other person so to abstract any water,

except in pursuance of a licence under this Chapter granted by the Authority and in accordance with the provisions of that licence.

The Water Resources Act also makes provision for the licence application process and the granting and administration of those licences, including appeal provisions to the Secretary of State.

Water Act 2003

The Water Act 2003 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/37/contents was developed in response to the droughts of the 1990’s and amends the Water Resources Act 1991. A government review showed that existing legislation did not enable adequate management of water resources and protection of the environment under current pressures.

The Environment Agency highlights the main changes brought by the 2003 Act :-

‘The 2003 Act will change the licensing system in six key areas:  all small abstractions, generally under 20 cubic metres per day (m3/d), will not need a licence;  dewatering of mines, quarries and engineering works, water transfers into canals and internal drainage districts, use of water for trickle irrigation and abstractions in some areas which are currently exempt will now need a licence to make sure that they are managed appropriately and that any impact on the environment can be dealt with;

Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013 Task A07-1 China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 38

 administration for making applications, transferring and renewing licences will be made simpler. This will also reduce barriers to the trading of water rights;  _ the status of licences has changed significantly, as all abstractors now have a responsibility not to let their abstraction cause damage to others. From 2012, the Environment Agency will be able to amend or take away someone’s permanent licence without compensation if they are causing serious damage to the environment;  _ there will be an increased focus on water conservation. Water companies will have new duties to conserve water and all public bodies will need to consider how to conserve water supplied to premises.  The Government has new responsibilities for monitoring and reporting progress in this area;  water companies will need to develop and publish water resources management and drought plans. The Environment Agency will be able to encourage transfer of water resources between water companies and recover costs associated with drought orders and permits.’

With regards to the current situation in China these changes are interesting. Firstly they are a response to increasing water security concerns and allow the Environment Agency to remove or amend licences where there is environmental damage, overcoming the Common Law rights issue, highlighted above. It also increases the emphasis on water efficiency and water loss through irrigation. It also allows for the simplification of the application process and the deregulation of small abstractions (under 20m3 per day).

4.4.2 Water Quality

This is also regulated by the Water Resources Act 1991, Section III

From the Act, it is an Offence to pollute controlled waters :

Offences of polluting controlled waters

(1) A person contravenes this section if he causes or knowingly permits any poisonous, noxious or polluting matter or any solid waste matter to enter any controlled waters.

However the permit (or consent) provides a defence

Defence to principal offences in respect of authorised discharges

(1)Subject to the following provisions of this section, a person shall not be guilty of an offence under section 85 above in respect of the entry of any matter into any waters or any discharge if the entry occurs or the discharge is made under and in accordance with, or as a result of any act or omission under and in accordance with—

(a)a consent given under this Chapter

4.5 Permit application process

Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013 Task A07-1 China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 39

Permit applications for water abstraction and water discharge are still separate in the uk and the two processes are outlined below

4.5.1 Abstraction Permit or Licence The following figure provides an overview of the UK water abstraction permit application process. Information required by abstractors can be accessed from the Environment Agency Web site at http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/business/topics/water/32034.aspx

Applications are normally applied for via an electronic process, however pre-application discussions with Environment Agency permitting staff are encouraged for all significant abstractions.

Figure 4.5.1 provides an overview of this Abstraction Licence Application process

Figure 4.5.1 Applying for and Abstraction Licence

4.5.2 Discharge permit process UK

This is similar in principle to the abstraction permit application process and is outlined in Figure 4.5.2 below. Again this is largely an electronic application in the first instance.

Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013 Task A07-1 China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 40

Figure 4.5.2 The Discharge Permitting Process

4.6 Permit application forms These forms are available on line or can be downloaded and completed manually.

An example application form can be found on http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/business/topics/water/118574.aspx

Figure 4.6.1 shows the front page

Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013 Task A07-1 China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 41

Figure 4.6.1 Application form for an Abstraction Permit

The forms reflect the legislation and should allow the issuing authority to assess and make a decision.

The forms themselves should be fit for purpose and only require information directly required to make the decision.

Considerable attention has been made to make these forms as clear and as useable as possible.

4.7 Permit format and examples

Examples of permits from UK, Denmark, Germany, France and Netherlands will be included in an electronic annex to this report. They can be large and complicated documents. They will be available on-line via the CEWP website, linked to this report.

4.7.1 Current UK Permit

Figures 4.7.1 and 4.7.2 show pictures of UK Abstraction and discharge permits. UK permits are considered to show some of the principles that must be considered when developing and issuing permits.

The permits themselves are essential legal documents, but in many respects the permit documents are not particularly interesting. They reflect the legislation under which they are

Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013 Task A07-1 China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 42 issued and should be clear and understandable to the permit holder, the inspector and the public. Many of the permits were issued some time ago and the original documents may be 30 years old. The tendency in the UK is to review and update conditions and only consolidate with new consents very occasionally. There may be a series of variations and updates which are appended to the original permit.

Simplistically the permits contain

 Issuing Authority – Usually Environment Agency in UK  Legislation under which they are issued  Unique permit number  Name and address of Permit holder  Description of operation/installation  Position of Site/installation  Permit conditions, including monitoring provision  Map and position of discharge and monitoring point  Authorising signature

The conditions in the permit are critical because these are the legal minimum requirements that the operator must adhere to. These should be set to protect the environment and to meet the objectives in the water body.

In the UK the permits are placed on the public register and can be accessed by the public on demand (usually for a small administrative fee).

Figures 4.7.1 and 4.7.2 UK Abstraction and Discharge permits

4.8 Permit conditions

The setting of clear and enforceable conditions in permits is the most critical element of the process. Conditions relating to water abstraction volume, time and place, or discharge quality elements must reflect the needs and risks of the water resource impacted. These numbers need to be evidence based and are usually calculated by modelling exercises, but refined and

Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013 Task A07-1 China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 43 negotiated by skilled water planners. It is these numbers that provide protection the water resource and ensure improvement to water security and the environment.

Monitoring information from the water resource and from the abstraction or discharge quality is essential to undertake these calculations. The amount of monitoring information determines the certainty that the level of protection will be achieved and the models are only as good as the data that is input to them.

The EU WFD allows for an optimisation of approaches to setting these numbers to take into account the following mechanisms.

 Environmental Quality Objective – permits set to meet Environmental Quality Standards  Emission Control Approach utilising – Best Available Technology (BAT) o This is used for large installations governed under the PPC Directive  No Deterioration  All of these in combination = Combined Approach developed in the WFD

Water resource improvement programmes are often driven by the progressive tightening of permit conditions. Transitional permit conditions can be added to permits. An example might be  Normalise/legalise current operations and achievement  Set new conditions with timescale for achievement  Say 3-5 years to install new infrastructure  Reduce say 50% load or x% abstraction reduction by XXXX

Permit conditions are usually set as a statistic – eg 95%ile compliance – or mode or median conditions. This allows for the normal variability of treatment process and can allow proportionate compliance assessment, whilst avoiding overzealous enforcement.

4.9 Monitoring, inspection and compliance assessment

4.9.1 Monitoring and inspection terminology

Most regulators utilise self-monitoring14 and self-reporting regimes by operators to monitor and report performance of abstractions and discharges.

14 The terminology is critical here, this is not Self-Regulation. Self-regulation implies that operators will monitor, assess, report and enforce. Few industries successfully enforce or prosecute themselves!

Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013 Task A07-1 China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 44

An example self-monitoring system is outlined in the Figure 4.9.1 from the Environment Agency, which also highlights the need for quality assurance, in the monitoring methods, analytical methods and for any instrumentation used.

Figure 4.9.1 Self-monitoring system

4.9.2 Monitoring of permit Conditions – Overview

The Environment Agency publication M18 on Monitoring of Discharges to Water and Sewer, 2012, contains many of the key principles relating to monitoring permit compliance. It is contained in the electronic annex

‘It describes an overall approach to operator self-monitoring (OSM) for discharges to the water environment and provides guidance on the selection of analytical methods used for regulatory purposes. The approach is also applicable to discharges to sewer.

It contains:  quality assurance and quality control requirements  different approaches to sampling  guidance on selection and validation of analytical methods  reporting requirements  an index of common monitoring methods’.

4.9.3 Quality assurance

Effective Management systems are expected. The operator responsible for self-monitoring must ensure their management system covers all aspects of self-monitoring, including:

Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013 Task A07-1 China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 45

 management of self-monitoring  Sampling programme design  sampling procedures  analysis and reporting procedures  staff training  the process of audit and review of sampling and analysis operations  addressing non-conformities

4.9.4 Choice of Sampling Point

Discharge sample points must be at a location that ensures that the sample is truly representative of the discharge.

 The sampling point location should be agreed with EA, documented and clearly and permanently labelled.  A sampling position in a pipe or channel must be sufficiently far downstream of the last inflow that mixing of the two streams is complete.  Samples at an outfall should be taken from regions of high turbulence and good mixing, usually at the centre of the discharge. Solid materials will have little chance to settle out here.  Samples in channels should be collected away from the sides and bottom of the channel to avoid contamination of the sample with sediment and biological growths.  When sampling from chambers (for example manholes), avoid contamination of the sample by the disturbance of deposits from the cover when the cover is lifted and prevent contamination of the sample from the chamber walls and any bottom deposits.  Samples may also be drawn off from effluent streams at a tap. Care should be taken to ensure any dead space is flushed out with effluent before the sample is collected.

Sampling staff should be aware that manholes and similar confined spaces are dangerous and must not be entered unless in accordance with a safe system of work and after appropriate training.

4.9.5 Access, facilities and services

Access, facilities and services required for sampling will vary depending on the approach taken to monitoring, and the equipment used. However all require:

 a safe means of access to, and a safe place of work at the sampling position  provision of shelter and weatherproofing of equipment  space for the equipment and personnel  essential services, for example, electricity and lighting.

Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013 Task A07-1 China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 46

4.9.6 Sample bottles, storage and transportation.

These details are important and the EA requirement is as follows and can be seen in full in the Annex If preservation of samples by refrigeration is required, then during transportation of samples to the laboratory, including retention time in an automatic sampling device, the sample storage environment should maintain a temperature of 5±3°C, using ice packs, refrigerators or other appropriate methods. An organisation carrying out sampling should have appropriate procedures for demonstrating this. It is recognised that some time may be required to bring the sample temperature to within this range.

Samples should be transported in sealed containers, which should be regularly cleaned and disinfected. Examination of the samples should be undertaken as soon as possible after collection. Every attempt should be made to start the examination within 24 hours of sample collection. Where logistics do not allow this, samples may be examined up to 48 hours after collection provided they are kept cool (5±3°C) and in the dark.

When samples are stored at a laboratory, method specific storage requirements may need to be invoked, for example, laboratory storage temperatures may be 1-5°C

4.9.7 Laboratory analysis and choosing a method

Laboratory facilities and analytical and quality assurance methods are a critical part of regulation. Some small businesses cannot achieve these standards, but they would be expected to buy in services of the following specified quality. The regulator would also need equivalent standards and good practice.

The EA guidance extract is here

Standard methods are developed by various national and international organisations. It has been suggested that choosing measurement methods published by the organisations listed below will form the foundation for better reliability and comparability:

 standard methods required by relevant EU Directives  CEN standard for the relevant pollutant or parameter  ISO standards  national standards (SCA blue books + BSI)

Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013 Task A07-1 China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 47

 alternative methods, such as in house methods, modified methods or test kits, with prior approval from us. We may also impose extra requirements.

However, the degree of validation detailed in standard methods is variable, especially with regard to the matrix the method is employed in. Therefore it is extremely important that the measuring method is fully evaluated to check that it is fit for purpose, and that the laboratory employing the method is itself able to verify any performance criteria that may be stated in the appropriate standard or specified by us, for example in an MCERTS standard. If the sample to be analysed is of a matrix that has not been the subject of suitable validation tests, then further tests will need to be carried out to ascertain the suitability of the method. We may require proof of method suitability and details of how matrix problems were addressed.

4.9.8 Flow measurement

The uncertainties associated with flow measurement can have a significant effect on the calculation of emission loads. Small fluctuations in flow measurements can lead to large differences in load calculations.

The Environment Agency have therefore produced two MCERTS standards to cover the inspection of effluent flow monitoring arrangements including the monitoring installations and the associated quality assurance systems.

The standards are:

 Minimum requirements for the self-monitoring of effluent flow - this specifies our requirements for permit holders to measure the flow of sewage and/or trade effluent discharging to controlled waters or public sewer. It also includes the relevant quality systems and the collection/reporting of monitoring data.

 Competency Standard for MCERTS inspectors – effluent flow monitoring – this specifies the competency standard required for independent technical specialists who will undertake the assessment process on behalf of the consent holder.

4.10 Permit Charging Systems – Cost Recovery

The Environment Agency is able to cover its costs of administering the permit systems via a published scheme, agreed by the Minister. Charging is strictly limited to cost recovery only as any income above this would be seen as a tax on industry, and non-hypothecation of tax is a key principle in UK.

Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013 Task A07-1 China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 48

The water itself is not commoditised in any way and costs relate only to the management and abstraction of water only. Another very important principle in the UK

In UK two similar but parallel schemes are in force, on for water abstraction and one for discharge permitting. The principles are similar so only the water abstraction scheme is descried. Figure 4.10.1 shows the introduction to the scheme and the full document will be given in the electronic annex

Figure 4.10.1 Environment Agency Scheme of Abstraction Charges

The Charging scheme is usually reviewed on a five yearly basis and charges set for that period. The Environment Agency will construct the proposed scheme with knowledge of past and future costs. The Agency will then consult externally on the proposed scheme and present Ministers with their recommendations and issues raised. The Minister then agrees a final scheme.

The costs taken into account in the charging scheme include:

 Permit application fees – usually a one-off set fee  Administration and maintenance of permits  Monitoring the environmental impact of abstraction

Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013 Task A07-1 China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 49

 Water resource planning and modelling  Water flow monitoring infrastructure  Enforcement and prosecution work  Maintaining databases and public registers  Survey work to establish size and variability or resource  Staff and overheads

This allows a regional or river basin view of costs to be calculated which are given in Figure 4.10.2

Figure 4.10.2 Water Abstraction Charges for 2010 – Environment Agency

These charges are then allocated to abstractors according to a formula, given in Figure 4.10.3

Figure 4.10.3 Charging Formula – Environment Agency

Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013 Task A07-1 China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 50

It should be noted that this takes into account amount licenced and a series of other factors relating to the availability of water in certain catchments and the costs of monitoring and maintaining these. For example the ‘source factor’ will allow the additional cost of groundwater monitoring and management to be added, resulting in a higher charge for abstracting from groundwater.

In the UK most of the water is abstracted by the ten privatised water companies (like Thames Water. They hold most licences and the largest by volume abstraction permits, mostly for public supply. They pay significant charges to the Environment Agency for permits. These costs are passed on to water customers via water bills. The water bills paid by water customers relate closely to the full cost of the water service.

4.11 Future UK Permits

The UK is in the process of implementing a new Environmental Permitting Regime to provide industry, regulators and others with a single extended permitting and compliance system. It allows regulators to concentrate resources on medium and high-risk operations whilst continuing to protect the environment and human health.

The Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2010 can be found at https://www.gov.uk/government/policies/protecting-and-enhancing-our-urban-and-natural-en vironment-to-improve-public-health-and-wellbeing/supporting-pages/the-environmental-perm itting-system and further information from the Environment Agency at http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/business/topics/permitting/

There will be an extended timetable for reviewing permits, and any new permits will be issued in this form.

4.12 Enforcement and Prosecution

Clear and proportionate enforcement against illegal abstractions or discharges, failure against permit conditions or in the case of a pollution incident or other environmental damage, is essential. It is important to change the attitude of industry, municipalities and other operators that their permit is to be taken seriously and adhered to. The public also need to be informed of this change and reassured that the authorities are taking this seriously.

The EA has produced two linked guidance documents on enforcement and sanctions which outline the steps that can be taken if a permit is breached, in the case of a pollution incident or if other environmental damage occurs. These can be found at

Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013 Task A07-1 China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 51 http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/business/regulation/31851.aspx and the document covers are seen in Figure 4.12.1.

There was considerable debate about whether these documents should be published, in case offenders use the information to avoid prosecution. However, since publication, no evidence of misuse has been identified and the overall the benefits of transparent and clear procedures have been helpful for enforcement officers and the courts.

Figure 4.12.1 Enforcement and Sanctions Documents – Environment Agency

The EA has a range of enforcement powers available to use in these cases and the guidance outlines what approach will be taken.

 enforcement notices and works notices (where contravention can be prevented or needs to be remedied)  Prohibition notices (where there is an imminent risk of serious environmental damage)  suspension or revocation of environmental permits and licences  variation of permit conditions  injunctions  carrying out remedial works (where we carry out remedial works we will seek to recover the full costs incurred from those responsible)  criminal sanctions, including prosecution  civil sanctions, including financial penalties

The use of penalties against environmental crime was set in a review undertaken for government by a prominent environmental lawyer, Professor Richard Macrory. This is known

Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013 Task A07-1 China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 52 as the Regulators’ Compliance Code, 2007 and can be found at http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file45019.pdf

The Macrory Review identified the following principles to consider when determining the appropriate course of action to address offending and to ensure compliance.

 aim to change the behaviour of the offender;  aim to eliminate any financial gain or benefit from non-compliance;  be responsive and consider what is appropriate for the particular offender and regulatory issue, which can include punishment and the public stigma that should be associated with a criminal conviction;  be proportionate to the nature of the offence and the harm caused;  aim to restore the harm caused by regulatory non-compliance, where appropriate; and  aim to deter future non-compliance

This has been distilled by the EA into four different types of preferred outcomes, shown in Figure 4.12.2.

Figure 4.12.2 Four preferred outcomes from enforcement – Environment Agency UK

Having considered the preferred outcome in response to an incident the Environment Agency has outlined the following decision tree – Figure 4.12.3 as guidance for enforcement officers

Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013 Task A07-1 China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 53 against a number of situations and enforcement variable and options. It is useful in summarising the approach and the enforcement and sanctions choices available.

Figure 4.12.3 Enforcement and Sanctions - decision tree, from the Environment Agency

In the UK most enforcement action utilises the UK Criminal Law to obtain criminal prosecutions against offenders. This is very powerful, however because of the seriousness of the criminal justice system, high levels of proof and evidence are required and penalties by the courts are relatively small (although progressively increasing). The criminal procedures are often followed by Civil Law claims for damages and restoration. Often these are very high, especially clean-up costs for major incidents like oil pollution.

However, the increased use of civil prosecutions was advocated in the Macrory Review and UK is now introducing a suite of civil options, especially for minor offences. Fixed penalty tickets can be issued by the Environment Agency without going through court procedures. Other civil sanctions are also available.

It should be noted that in the USA most environment crimes are dealt with via civil actions, although criminal prosecutions can also be taken in serious cases. The best current example is the Gulf of Mexico oil rig accident in 2010. http://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/gulf-of-mexico-restoration.html?gclid=CK_z_dDF2ro CFc7JtAodARcAow

Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013 Task A07-1 China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 54

The following extract from the Guardian newspaper emphasises the civil liabilities in this extreme situation. Criminal actions and fines may still follow against the companies and company directors involved.

‘The company had set aside $7.8bn (£4.8bn) for compensation claims but by July the figure had risen to $9.6bn and was set to rise significantly without court intervention. Claims administrator Patrick Juneau said that about $3.69bn had been paid out in compensation. BP has already incurred more than $42bn of charges for clean-up costs, fines and compensation related to the spill.’ Guardian Newspaper 3 October 2013 http://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/oct/03/bp-us-court-appeal-ruling-deepwater-hori zon-oil-spill

The following Figure 4.12.4 was presented by Eluned Watson, Pinsent and Masons Lawyer, to the CEWP Study tour. It is from the UK Environment Agency and shows the fines and scope of enforcement activity undertaken in 2011.

Figure 4.12.4 Summary of Criminal Fines for Environmental Offences 2011 – Environment Agency

The UK is consolidating the approach to enforcement and other key water resource issues in a new 2013 Water Bill that is currently passing through Parliament and is timetabled to become UK Law in 2014. Information on this can be found at http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2013-14/water.html

Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013 Task A07-1 China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 55

4.13 Public Access to information

Public Access to information is seen as critical in the UK and the rest of Europe Essential in UK and this was consolidated in 2004 by the Environmental Information Regulations. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2004/3391/contents/made Defra outline the purpose of the regulations as follows

‘The Environmental Information Regulations (EIRs) 2004 are based on Directive 2003/4/EEC.

They give the public access rights to environmental information held by a public authority in response to requests. The Regulations came into force on 1 January 2005 along with the Freedom of Information Act and cover any information that is considered to be 'environmental information' within the terms of the Regulations.

The Regulations promote the release of as much environmental information as possible to enable increased public participation in environmental decision making.’

Under these Regulations the Environment Agency holds a public register, which has been in existence for water is various forms 1989. All environmental monitoring information, permits and environmental information is made public through this register. There are very few exceptions for commercial sensitivity and military installations, although the UK military is increasingly placing all its environmental information in the public domain on a voluntary and equivalent basis.

Basic information is available free to the public online. However the Environment Agency has a charging policy for complex requests for information. This enables them to recover costs involved in processing information and making it available. This also reduces the number of trivial requests and reduces complex and time consuming questions. There are some exemptions for educational and research requests from other public bodies.

Open public access to most information is available on line via a Geographic Information System (GIS) system, known as – What’s in my Backyard

4.13.1 EA What’s in my Backyard –

The Environment Agency provides on line access to environmental information via a web based interactive mapping system. This is called, ‘What’s In My Backyard’ and can be accessed via http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/homeandleisure/37793.aspx. By entering a post code (Zip code) all permits and environmental data can be accessed via the map interface. A series of screen cuts is given below to provide an overview; Figures 4.13.1, 4.13.2 and 4.13.3

Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013 Task A07-1 China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 56

The interactive page allows a topic to be chosen.

Figure 4.13.1. – What’s in My Backyard – First interactive page

The Post code or address is entered on the next screen and the high level map allows direct zoom facility.

Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013 Task A07-1 China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 57

Figure 4.13.2 – What’s in My Backyard – Map and Post Code interface The next map provides an example of the environmental issues and activities in a selected post code area, in this case west of Reading.

Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013 Task A07-1 China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 58

Figure 4.13.3 What’s in My Backyard – Environmental issues identified

The individual icons can be clicked on to provide the next level of information. The map can be zoomed and panned to allow access to adjacent areas and points of environmental interest.

This simple interface allows public access to a wide range of environmental information derived from the Environment Agency databases. This also allows the Environment Agency to fulfil its statutory duty to make environmental data available to the public. This is not the only route for information and ‘Public Registers’ are maintained and can be accessed directly on request to the EA.

This is an innovative initiative to bring environmental information to the public through the internet. It was first made available about 10 years ago for a reduced range of parameters. It has been extended and improved significantly over this time.

4.14 Pollution Incidents

Pollution incidents can occur from permitted installations or as a result of accidental or deliberate actions by industry of the public. In the context of this report on permitting an incident may occur as a result of an accident on a permitted site, power failure, negligence or other external or internal interference.

On some occasions a failure to meet permit conditions can cause an incident. This would include, over abstraction or polluting discharge can cause harm to the environment, public health concerns or issues with drinking water.

The Environment Agency log and maintain a database of all incidents which they identify as in Figure 4.14.1

Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013 Task A07-1 China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 59

Figure 4.14.1 Incident types

Incidents are categorised according to the following procedure as outlined in the Guidance Document known as the Common Incident Classification Scheme. http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/business/regulation/31825.aspx

The front page is given below in Figure 4.14.2

Figure 4.14.2 Common Incident Classification Scheme – Environment Agency 2011

Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013 Task A07-1 China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 60

In addition the Environment Agency has introduced a Compliance Classification Scheme (2013) See Figure 4.14.3 for the key categories, to focus directly on incidents and failures at permitted sites. http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/business/regulation/31825.aspx.

This complements the Common Incident Classification Scheme and feeds information into the Pollution Incident System outlined below.

Figure 4.13.3 Common Compliance Classification Categories – Environment Agency 2013

4.14.1 National Incident Recording System and database

The UK Environment Agency has operated an incident database for many years. All incidents and permit failures identified according to the Common Incident Classification Scheme are recorded in the current National Incident Recording System according to the guidance below in Figure 4.14.1

Figure 4.14.1 National Incident Recording System – Environment Agency

From this database information on type and seriousness of incidents can be gained. This assists in work planning and in targeting pollution prevention campaigns and future legislation and policy. Figure 4.14.2 is an output from this system and shows the numbers of serious incidents

Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013 Task A07-1 China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 61

Figure 4.14.2 UK Serious Pollution Incidents 2005 – 2010 – Environment Agency

This and similar information directly informs public opinion and feeds into the communication strategy for the Environment Agency.

4.15 Communication and Publicity on Water and Environment

The Environment Agency publishes summary environmental performance in annual reports and provided more details in other more specific publications. Figure 4.15.1 is an extract from the Environment Agency Annual Report from 2012.

Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013 Task A07-1 China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 62

Figure 4.15.1 Extract from the Environment Agency Annual Report 2012

It also describes the benefits of regulation in the next extract, Figure 4.15.2

Figure 4.15.2 Benefits of Regulation - Environment Agency Annual Report 2012

Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013 Task A07-1 China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 63

The Environment Agency encourages companies to go ‘beyond regulation’ and set their own stringent standards, above the minimum set by the regulators. Some of the very best companies publish their own performance – some in real time on web sites and at notice boards at factory gates!

It is important to find the correct balance of encouragement and pressure to comply. Each year the Environment Agency publishes a league table of best and worst performers. However, the newspapers tend only to publish the lists of worst performers - no newspaper publishes the best performers – bad news sells newspapers! Figure 4.15.3 is a newspaper report on this league table in UK

Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013 Task A07-1 China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 64

League table exposes worst water polluters

The worst water companies are being named as their performance deteriorates and pollution spills continue to threaten wildlife

Jon Ungoed-Thomas and Daniel Foggo Published: Times Newspaper - 15 May 2011

 Bude beach is famous for surfers, but polluted by South West Water (Cornwall Tourist Board) The country’s most polluting water companies have been named and shamed in the first publicly released official league table. The worst offender is Welsh Water, with South West Water identified as the dirtiest company in England, followed by Severn Trent. Figures released by the Environment Agency show for the first time the number of breaches in water standards by the 10 companies in England and Wales. Some of the lapses directly affect bathing areas. The statistics reveal how the firms performed in keeping to the permitted levels of contaminants in sewage. They also show the extent of “pollution incidents” in which sewage was unintentionally leaked. The total number of pollution spills topped 2,200 for 2009, nearly three quarters of which breached official consents. In this category, Anglian Water was the worst performer, with 296 “unconsented incidents”. The company said many minor spills were caused by blockages in the system and were beyond its control. South West Water performed worst for the level of contaminants allowed in sewage released into water courses. However, it was joint best in terms of the number of pollution incidents in the most severe category. Welsh Water and Severn Trent Water also failed to meet permitted contaminant levels Like some of the other companies, South West Water has been prosecuted for its worst slipups. In October 2009 it was fined £10,000 for allowing excessively polluted sewage to be discharged into the sea around Bude, where there is a blue flag beach. The fine was reduced to £2,000 on appeal.

Figure 4.15.3 - League Table - Times Newspaper - 15 May 2011

Increasingly big and multinational companies are very concerned about reputation and environmental performance. Increasingly this is a very useful lever to ensure improved performance and reporting.

The Environment Agency works hard to maintain a balance in regulation to ensure compliance and to encourage innovation and improvement.

Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013 Task A07-1 China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 65

5 Case Study - Water Permitting in Denmark

Figure 5 Map of Denmark. The country is surrounded by water and connected to Sweden by a bridge. The country has a common border with Germany. The country has a population of approximately 5.6 million people.

5.1 Administrative arrangements in Denmark

5.1.1 Planning, permitting and delegation of responsibilities

Both the application procedures and the permission procedures vary between Danish authorities. The permitting authority decides on the information to be provided by the

Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013 Task A07-1 China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 66

applicant – eventually through consultations – unless required information is specified in statutory orders. There are no common standard forms for application of permissions shared by authorities, but the complexity of application and permitting procedures are laid down in legislation in compliance with EU Directives. A planning law (Danish Law on Planning, LBK nr. 587 27/05/2013) delegates the responsibilities among authorities on planning and permitting Two main levels of authorities in Denmark undertake planning and permitting on water  The Environmental Protection Agency with 2 Regional Divisions  98 municipalities.

5.1.2 Ministry of Environment and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

The Ministry of the Environment is responsible for administrative and research tasks in the areas of environmental protection and planning. In Denmark the administration at state level is managed by the Ministry of the Environment. At the local levels, much of the administrative responsibility has been delegated to municipalities. The Ministry consists of the Ministers Department, three agencies, and several independent decentralised units across the country see Figure 5.1.1 An independent appeal board is also linked to the Ministry. The Ministry employs more than 2500 people.

Figure 5.1.1 Organisation Chart – Danish Ministry of Environment

Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013 Task A07-1 China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 67

The Environmental Protection Agency is part of the Ministry of the Environment

The Environmental Protection Agency is organised into divisions. The environment divisions are responsible for the tasks relating to important national and international nature and environment interests, as well as especially complicated matters, for example plans for the aquatic environment including River Basin Management Plans, permitting and supervision of heavily polluting enterprises, wastewater treatment and appeals under environmental acts.

The Environmental Board of Appeal is in charge of processing appeals against decisions by municipalities and environment centres under among others the Environmental Protection Act, the Soil Contamination Act and the Water Supply Act.

5.1.3 The municipalities The municipalities, among others, are responsible for supervision of enterprises, operation of utilities and carry out the majority of specific authority tasks on municipal planning including plans on water resources and water supply and plans on waste water management. They also issue permissions on water abstraction and water discharges and undertake inspection and compliance assessments. Municipalities are as well provided with considerable enforcement powers.

Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013 Task A07-1 China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 68

Figure 5.1.2 Distribution of 98 municipalities in Denmark

5.1.4 River Basin Management Planning The EPA and regional divisions prepare RBMPs in accordance with the WFD (Adopted in the Danish Law on Environmental Goals, LBK nr. 932 24/09/2009). Denmark is divided in 4 RBM districts and 23 sub-districts. A RBMP has been prepared for each of the 23 sub-districts.

The 4 RBM districts and sub-districts are distributed as shown in Figure 5.1.3 and as described below:

 1. RBM district. Area Jylland and Fyn o Subdisctricts 1.1 - 1.15  2. RBM district. Area Sjælland o Subdistricts 2.1 - 2.6  3. RBM district. Area Bornholm o Subdistricts 3.1  4. RBM district. Area International o Subdistricts 4.1

Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013 Task A07-1 China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 69

Figure 5.1.3. Four River Basin Districts and 23 sub-districts

Each of the 98 municipalities prepares a Waste Water Plan, and a Water Resources and Water Supply Plan, which are subsidiary planning documents, supplementing a Municipality Plan.

The relation between plans is hierarchic in the same way as the distribution of competencies between EPA and the municipalities to avoid conflicting planning, permitting and decision-making. It means that plans and permits prepared by the municipalities must not be in conflict with specifications in the RBMPs, and permissions must not be in conflict with the specifications in neither the RBMPs, nor the subsidiary documents supplementing the Municipality Plan.

5.2 Application and Permitting Procedures - Overview

In principle, no one in Denmark is allowed to abstract water from surface or groundwater bodies and no one is allowed to discharge waste water to water bodies without a permit.

But the procedure and the scale of efforts for preparing applications and get permissions on water abstraction depends very much on the amount of abstracted water and the water resource available in the abstraction area.

For waste water discharge permissions the procedure and scale of efforts depends on the amount and pollution of water to be discharged, the planning target of the receiving water body, as well as the overall complexity of environmental impacts of the facility, where from the water is going to be discharged. The procedures are the same for permissions for “green field installations” or permissions to change, or upgrade already existing permissions.

Even if permits on water abstraction and waste water discharge are formulated in a straight forward way, the application procedure is often complicated, requiring both comprehensive status and assessment reports and initiation of time consuming consultations and political decision processes. That is especially the case when an integrated application and permitting procedure is based on requirements of the Danish version of the EIA Directive, cases under the IPPC Directive or even the Seveso Directive.

Integrated applications and permissions address many different environmental impacts, in addition to those which might arise from abstraction and discharge of waste water. Even if permissions concerning water are simple and straight forward then they cannot be issued in isolation, but must be assessed within an integrated approach, on equal terms with, for instance, impacts from noise, air pollution and nature protection.

In the following sections a distinction is made between procedures for integrated permitting as described in the EIA, IPPC and Seveso Directives and procedures for simple straight forward

Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013 Task A07-1 China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 70 permitting on water abstraction and waste water discharge in accordance with Danish water laws and corresponding Directives.

5.3 Complex Permissions

5.3.1 EIA Based Permissions The Danish planning law (Law on Planning, LBK nr. 587 27/05/2013) delegates the responsibilities among authorities on planning and permitting. But the law also introduces integrated permitting with reference to the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Directive15 as adopted in Denmark through a Statutory Order on Assessment of impacts from Certain Public and Private Facilities in consequence of Law on Planning (Bek. Nr. 1314 21/12/2011)

39 types of projects are specified In Appendix 1 in the Danish Statutory Order and the EIA Directive, where permissions require that an impact assessment procedure must be done as part of the application process. The result of the assessment must be taken into account in the permission. An Appendix 2 specifies approximately 80 types of projects which must be screened to see if essential environmental impacts arise, if they are implemented as planned. If the result of the screening indicates that essential environmental impacts occur then an EIA must be done as well and the result must be taken into account as part of issuing permission.

The approach to EIA based permissions is that major projects may have many different impacts on the environment. Therefor to provide permission on water abstraction or discharge of waste water alone, may only cover some types of environmental impacts, which may not be the most severe. The project and its impacts as a whole must be considered within an integrated approach which may require appropriate mitigation measures as part of an integrated EIA permission.

Another aspect of the integrated EIA permitting procedure in Denmark is that an application is handled by the authorities with the intended concept: one door in and one door out. It means that the applicant will not need to contact different authorities or offices to relevant permissions. It is intended that the authorities will coordinate internally without involving the applicant in unnecessary bureaucracy, and the permission shall be issued as an assembled permission taking into account mitigation of impacts for both water, soil, air, noise, nature and others. An EIA permission including abstraction and discharge permits will always be reflected in an addendum to the Municipality Plan. It means that both the Municipality Plan and the subsidiary Water Resource and Waste Water Plans are progressively revised through addenda.

Many applications and permissions are issued as part of the EIA procedure in Denmark. The complexity is first of all shown in the requirements on needed documentation in the EIA report as part of an application. An assessment report is prepared with content rarely below 100

15 Directive on the assessment of the effect of certain public and private projects on the environment. 2011/92/EU.

Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013 Task A07-1 China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 71 pages, and with a standard content of the report16 as shown in Box 5.3.1 below. The time required for working out the EIA report may take more than 6 months including procedures for consultations with the permitting authority and at least one with the public.

The standard content of an EIA report to be delivered as part of an EIA based application

1) A description of the project, including in particular: i) a description of the physical characteristics of the whole project and the land-use requirements during the construction and operational phases; ii) a description of the main characteristics of the production processes, for instance, the nature and quantity of the materials used; iii) an estimate, by type and quantity, of expected residues and emissions (water, air and soil pollution, noise, vibration, light, heat, radiation, etc.) resulting from the operation of the proposed project. 2) An outline of the main alternatives studied by the developer and an indication of the main reasons for this choice, taking into account the environmental effects. 3) A description of the aspects of the environment likely to be significantly affected by the proposed project, including, in particular, population, fauna, flora, soil, water, air, climatic factors, material assets, including the architectural and archaeological heritage, landscape and the interrelationship between the above factors.

4) A description ( 1 ) of the likely significant effects of the proposed project on the environment resulting from: i) the existence of the project; ii) the use of natural resources; iii) the emission of pollutants, the creation of nuisances and the elimination of waste. 5) The description by the developer of the forecasting methods used to assess the effects on the environment referred to in point 4. 6) A description of the measures envisaged to prevent, reduce and where possible offset any significant adverse effects on the environment. 7) A non-technical summary of the information provided under headings 1 to 6. 8) An indication of any difficulties (technical deficiencies or lack of know-how) encountered by the developer in compiling the required information.

Box 5.3.1 – Standard content of an EIA report - Denmark

EIA based permissions are worked out by both municipalities and EPA and the 5 subsidiary Regional Centres, but EPA will be the competent authority for complex permissions and permissions with impacts covering more than one municipality.

5.3.2 IPPC based permissions

16 The EIA directive, article 5(1) and Annex IV

Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013 Task A07-1 China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 72

The requirements of the IPPC directive17 are adopted in the Danish Environment Protection Law, Chapter 5 (LBK nr. 879 26/06/2010) on heavily polluting enterprises and other statutory documents. Applications and permissions for heavily polluting enterprises are often handled as part of an EIA procedure as many of them can be described in relation to either Appendix 1 or 2 of the Danish Statutory Order on EIA and the EIA directive, but not necessarily with emphasis on water abstraction or waste water discharge. The IPPC Directive specifies the information required from enterprises applying for permissions. The enterprises to be handled in accordance with requirements of the IPPC directive are listed in two appendices, similar, but not the same as in the EIA directive.

Major enterprises and enterprises with essential impacts on the environment which fall under the IPPC Directive need to satisfy permissions on abstraction and discharge of water as part of the integrated EIA procedure and a EIA report with a content as described above, but IPPC based applications and permissions will often have to focus on hazardous components and application of BAT (Best Available Technology). Permitting on discharge of waste water and hazardous components takes place based on Directive 2006/11/EF18 as adopted in the Danish Statutory Order on Water Quality Demands in the Aquatic Environment and Demands on Discharge of Hazardous Components to Rivers, Lakes and the Ocean, (BEK. nr. 1022 25/08/2010)

IPPC based applications and permissions are worked out in parallel with the EIA procedure and published together with an EIA permission and according to the time constraints set in the EIA procedure.

The Ministry of the Environment will be the competent authority to determine permissions for all enterprises requiring complex IPPC based permissions or enterprises with impacts covering more than one municipality.

5.3.3 Seveso Directive Based Permissions

The requirements of Seveso III Directive19 are partly adopted in the Danish law on Risk Control for Major Accidents with Hazardous Components, BEK. nr. 1666 14/12/2006. Applications and permissions must be worked out in accordance with types and amounts of hazardous components available in an enterprise as specified in Column 1 and 2 in appendix 1 and 2 of the Danish law and the Directive

All applications and permissions for Column 1 enterprises shall in Denmark at least have an EIA permission based on an EIA application and report, including additional sections on risk.

17 Directive on Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control, 2008/1/EC 18 Directive on pollution caused by certain dangerous substances discharged into the aquatic environment, (2006/11/EF) 19 Directive on the control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances, 2012/18/EU

Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013 Task A07-1 China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 73

But the permission must include an approval of a Safety Document describing how the reduction of the probability of major accidents is introduced through risk management. In addition emergency plans shall be described and land use planning taken into account with the purpose to protect the environment and to avoid health risks for workers and humans in densely populated areas.

All applications and permissions for Column 2 enterprises shall provide a safety report which is less comprehensive than the Safety Document for Column 1 enterprises.

Seveso Directive based applications and permissions in Denmark are very comprehensive and complex. This is because the final decision on permissions will have to rely on calculating probabilities that certain types of accidents may occur, in combination with the hazards from dangerous substances, in different amounts or concentrations.

Seveso based applications will always require an EIA report and the authority to issue permission is always the EPA or one of the regional EPA centers. But in addition 4 other authorities are involved in approving safety documents and safety reports: The Danish Working Environment Service, the Police, the Fire-brigade and the City or Local Council. An EIA permission including permission to abstract water or discharge waste water cannot be issued unless the Safety documents or the safety reports are approved.

5.4 Discharge of Water - Simple Applications Denmark

The main legislative document in Denmark for issuing permissions on discharge of water is the: Statutory Order on permissions to discharge waste water in accordance with Chapter 3 and 4 in the Law on Environment Protection, Bek.11/12/2007.

Chapter 4 in the Law on Environment Protection specifies that the Municipalities must prepare a Waste Water Plan (WWP). The WWP describes among others how and where waste water shall be treated and discharged. It is the main regulating tool for issuing permissions, and permissions must comply with the intentions and demands laid down in the WWP and the RBMPs.

Different types of waste water are specified in the Order which serves as background for making a distinction between different types of permissions.

 Waste water refers to water discharged from resident areas, enterprises, dispersed settlements and paved areas.  Domestic waste water refers to water discharged from households including outflow from water closets  Roof and superficial run-off refers to rainwater from roof areas and paved and partly paved areas with a chemical composition similar to rainwater  Sewage treatment works refer to open and closed pipes and treatment facilities for transport and treatment of waste water

Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013 Task A07-1 China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 74

 Collecting tanks refer to dense, officially approved tank types

In general the characteristics of waste water types in simple permissions refer to eutrophication components with the emphasis on controlling BOD, N and P. More complicated applications and permits are required for industrial waste water and other types of water contaminated with prioritized hazardous components.

Permissions for discharge of different types of waste water are based on different conditions. The following main types of water discharges are specified in the Order on water discharge as background for setting conditions. Waste water and treatment  Discharge of domestic waste water into public sewer systems connected to treatment plants  Discharge of treated domestic waste water from treatment plants with different capacities into lakes, rivers and the ocean  Discharge of industrial waste water from major treatment plants into lakes, rivers and the ocean  Discharge of waste water from overflow of sewer systems Rain water and run-off  Discharge of rainwater from roofs and superficial run-off from paved areas  Discharge of water with a chemical content different from rainwater from roads, railroads and paved parking lots for more than 20 cars Waste water in open and rural areas  Discharge of water from scattered houses representing <30 PE  Discharge of waste water by seepage from houses representing <30 PE  Discharge of waste water to tank installations for up to 2 houses

For building and construction works discharge applications are often combined with applications on water abstraction based on either a temporary or a permanent request related to a building phase or the long term operation of facilities, see sections 5.6 -5.8 above.

5.4.1 The application process The permitting authorities let the applicants do the work to assemble the relevant information which is needed for determining permissions for discharge of water.

The information required in applications is not always immediately available and requires legal and technical expertise, including modeling and establishing monitoring programs, based on expensive analyses. The result is that preparation of some applications is considered as professional work to be done by private consultants or private consulting firms with liability

Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013 Task A07-1 China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 75 insurance and certification of working methods and quality procedures. The public authorities do not provide these services.

In the following the simple permit application process on water discharge is based on the practice in Copenhagen Municipality. This represents the densely populated capital area of Denmark. At least three municipal administration Centers have competencies in the permitting process depending on the kind of permission applied for: Center for Environment, Center for Park and Nature and Center for Building activities. An applicant will be guided by the municipal administration to address the right administrative center and a link is available on the internet telling where to go and what to do20.

 If the application is for the discharge of rainwater and run-off, the Center for Park and Nature shall be addressed. If the discharge permission shall be issued for building or construction activities then the Center for Building Activities shall be involved as well.

 If the application is for the discharge of waste water and treatment, the Center for Environment shall be addressed. If the discharge permission is issued for building or construction activities then the Center for Building Activities is involved as well.

 If the application is for discharge to rivers, lakes, the ocean or in open land, the Center for Park and Nature is addressed.

 In some applications all three Centers may be involved. The coordination between Centers takes place internally.

An application shall be determined in accordance with requirements of the permitting authority (Center), see section 5.11 on Application Forms below.

When all information is in place the application will either be rejected or permission will be issued. The administrative procedure has a duration of 4 weeks.

In response to the decision by the authority, a complaint from the applicant can be forwarded to an Environmental Appeal Board within 4 weeks. The Appeal Board will consider the decision or instruct the authority to remake the administrative procedure in case a decision has been made incorrectly or against insufficient background information.

5.4.2 Application forms As stated earlier there are no application formats common to all permitting authorities on discharge of water except for information on:

20 http://www.kk.dk/da/erhverv/tilladelser/byggeri/vand

Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013 Task A07-1 China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 76

 Who is the applicant/builder and what is the exact address and eventually cadastre number/house-owner association, telephone number and e-mail address.  Who has sent the application, telephone number and e-mail address

The last point shall be seen in the context that most applications are prepared by private consultants or consulting firms on behalf of the owner/builder who needs the discharge permission. In many cases an application requires technical information which needs expertise to be applied and presented correctly.

The request for information from the permitting authority in application forms may be very simple and open and may be formulated as:

 A detailed description of the background for the application and the services to be applied for.

The level of Information to be delivered in an application as background information may be presented as shown in the following examples.

5.4.3 Example of information required on temporary discharge of water to the ocean

The information to be delivered in an application to Centre for Park and Nature in Copenhagen Municipality on discharge of water to the ocean (harbour) may include information on:  Background for the application - for example the need for discharge of ground water for a temporary lowering of the ground water table during construction and building activities.  Location of the discharge point with exact address and detailed maps in a proper scale showing both the construction site and the discharge location  Description of the discharge point, with regard to lay out and description of whether pressure or gravitation pipes shall be applied  A statement of whether other discharges take place at the same discharge point and whether it takes place through the storm water system, the waste water collection system or through a private pipe established for the purpose  A description of the total discharge amount of water applied for and daily fluctuations over time  Indication of the time period when the discharge will take place and when it starts  Measurements of the water quality usually with emphasis on Total N, Total P,

Suspended Solids and BI5.

Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013 Task A07-1 China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 77

 information on concentrations and amounts of heavy metals and other hazardous components during the period of discharge applied for in case the discharge of water is going to take place from areas with soil contamination, The extent of chemical analyses to be agreed with the permitting authority, Centre for Park and Nature  Proposed waste water treatment before discharging  Indication of other treatment methods examined  A description of all Best Available Technology (BAT) alternatives which have been examined during the design phase with regard to water discharge  Proposed program for supervision of amounts of water being discharged and water quality (also for the purpose of calculating water discharge taxes if public sewers are applied)  Proposal for how to report on amounts of discharged water and water chemistry

5.4.4 Example of information in an application for household discharge into sewer systems

 Indication of how and where the connection between the sewer from the building and the existing waste water sewer shall be established (must be agreed with another authority before the application is sent, if the connection shall be established directly into a waste water well)  Information on the expected pollution of household waste water (in PE) to be discharged into the existing waste water collector system  A description of the expected maximum discharge flow and the daily fluctuations over time  Indication of the time period when the discharge will take place and when it starts  Indication of whether waste water treatment has been considered before discharged into the existing sewer system  Indication of the treatment methods which have been examined  Proposal for a supervision programme (also with the purpose to be able to calculate future discharge and treatment charges)

5.4.5 Example - Discharge of water - Copenhagen

The following example shows the general approach for permitting on discharge of water into the ocean.

Conditions in permissions in Copenhagen Municipality set by the Centre of Park and Nature. In other municipalities similar Centres also exist like Centre for Environment and Plan in Lyngby-Taarbaek Municipality, see later.

Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013 Task A07-1 China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 78

Some overall problems to be addressed in permissions are focused on

 To avoid hazardous components and other chemical components being discharged in concentrations that might represent a risk to the environment.  To avoid discharged polluting components exceeding water quality standards in specific water bodies as described in the RBMP, taking the existing load into account.  To prevent the discharge of water causing aesthetic nuisance or leaving any visible traces of oil or other components, which might cause unacceptable colour, smell or reduction in coastal water transparency.  To ensure that surface water from roofs and paved pedestrian areas is discharged through sand catchers into storm water systems, or alternatively is retained within the catchment  To ensure that surface water from paved parking areas and road areas is discharged into a combined storm and waste water system

5.4.6 General approach for permitting on discharges to sewer systems

Conditions in permissions are in Copenhagen Municipality are set by the Center for Environment. Some overall problems to be addressed in permissions focus on:

 Avoiding that the hydraulic capacity of sewer systems is exceeded.  Avoiding blocking or corrosion of sewers.  Avoid exceeding the capacity of treatment plants and to avoid inhibition of treatment processes.  To prevent risks to the health of staff working in sewers and at treatment plants.  To avoid risks of impacts in water bodies receiving treated waste water  See to that sludge from treatment plants can be disposed or applied safely.  See to that the discharge of hazardous components is reduced as much as possible through application of BAT.

5.4.7 Example format and content of simple permission Formats of permission for discharges of water are based on a common template. The template and the content of a permit from Taarbæk Municipality is shown below.

The following example of a commented permission format is based on:

“Permission to discharge treated waste water from Mølleaavaerket to Oeresund – discharge point the Oeresund pipe, Hjortekærbakken nr., Cadaster nr., Lundtofte”. Date. Lyngby – Tårbaek Municipality. Center for Environment and Plan

Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013 Task A07-1 China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 79

Statement and decision The permission to discharge treated waste water from Mølleåværket to Øresund is given in accordance with the application and with reference to specified laws and statutory orders Conditions for the permission The permission is given with reference to the technical description in the application and in accordance with the enumerated conditions 1-14. 1. Specified capacity of the treatment facility 2. Specification of the permitted amount of discharged water under different conditions 3. Specification of allowed overflow 4. The exact position of the point of discharge 5. Limit values for concentrations of BI5, SS, Tot- N, Tot-P and COD 6. Specification of demands on concentrations of hazardous components 7. Demand in case concentrations of chemical components are exceeded 8. Demand on installing new equipment for flow measurements 9. Specification of control with regard to sampling and chemical analyses 10. Specification of flow control in accordance with standard procedure 11. Requirement to make a journal of operations and to make the journal available for inspection 12. Demand to report on irregularities of operation and reporting to the inspection 13. Specification of a time schedule for preparing a yearly report on operation including irregularities 14. Statement saying that the inspection may require additional documentation. Guidance on appeal Specification of procedure in case the permission or its content is not accepted Who can forward an appeal Listing of all persons and organisations with the right to forward an appeal. Basis for decision on permission Legislative and planning background  Law on Environment Protection  Statutory Order on permissions to discharge waste water in accordance with Chapter 3 and 4 in Law on Environment Protection  Law on Environmental Goals  River Basin District Management Plan 2.3 Øresund  Waste Water Plan 2006-2011, Lyngby-Tårbæk Municipality

Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013 Task A07-1 China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 80

Information received  Application from Mølleaaværket to Lyngby-Tårbæk Municipality  Additional information on existing permissions on discharge of water  Consultative opinion from EPA Background description from the application  Environmental and technical description o The reasoning behind the application for extended discharge o Specification of relevant water quality aspects of the RBMP o Description of the treatment facility, Mølleåværket. o Review of the discharge conditions and treatment efficiency o Planned control facilities on waste water flow o Overflow frequencies and reducing mitigation measures o Distribution of responsibilities on permitting and supervision Environmental and technical evaluation  Operation of the existing facility and impact from discharged waste water  Compliance with water quality requirements in the Oeresund RBMP  Impacts from hazardous components in discharged waste water  Impacts from hazardous components in overflow waste water Summary of information applied for decision on permission Contact for further information o Center for Environment and Plan, name and telephone number.

The permission has approximately 8 pages, see Annex XX, which corresponds to other simple permissions issued by Copenhagen Municipality and Lyngby-Tårbæk Municipality on similar subjects:

“Temporary permission to discharge surface water from a construction site, Sankt Annae Place, to Copenhagen Harbour.” Date. Copenhagen Municipality. Center for Park and Nature.

“Permission to discharge drinking water as part of operating the main water supply pipe to Mølleåen. Lundtoftevej nr. Cadastre nr. Lundtofte”. Date. Lyngby–Tårbæk Municipality. Center for Environment and Plan

5.5 Abstraction of Water - Simple Applications - Denmark

Groundwater and surface water must not be exploited without permissions, §18 Law on Water Abstraction and Water Supply.

Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013 Task A07-1 China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 81

The main legislative documents in Denmark for issuing permissions on water abstraction are the Law on Water Supply, LBK nr. 635 07/06/2010 and the Statutory Order on Water Abstraction and Water Supply, Bek.1451 11/12/2007.

The main planning documents to be taken into account will be the RBMPs where the distribution and planned exploitation of water resources will be adopted. At the moment Denmark is in a transition period where water resource planning is laid down in Regional Plans will be phased out.

For future protection and for sustainable use of water resources the regional planning to be adopted in the RBMPs a country wide categorisation and mapping is ongoing with regard to “Areas for Abstraction of Special Interest” and “Areas for Abstraction of Some Interest”. The categorisation is based on geological and geomorphological data as well as information on protective soil profiles and ground water chemistry as described from borings during the last 100 years. A special issue in that context is related to registration of “Nitrate Sensitive Areas” within the category “Areas for Abstraction of Special Interest”. In Denmark high concentrations of nitrate in groundwater are an indicator of unprotected groundwater magazines needing special protection and attention.

In addition to the country wide registration of abstraction areas the municipalities prepare two local plans relevant for permitting

 a prioritised action plan for protection and sustainable use of water resources in accordance with §13(a-d) in Law on Water Abstraction and Water Supply  a plan on water supply describing where and how water resources shall be made available and how the resources shall be distributed within districts in accordance with Law on Water Abstraction and Water Supply §14(a).

The main regulating tools for issuing permissions must comply with the intentions and demands laid down in the municipal water supply plan, the action plan and the RBMP, taking into account the ongoing regional categorisation and mapping of ground water magazines.

Applications and permits related to water abstraction include many different purposes as for instance new abstractions for drinking water purposes, watering of crops, lowering of groundwater tables in connection with construction works or abstraction for infiltration for mitigate effects at contaminated sites. Only in some cases formats exist and the requirements on information may vary depending on the subject.

For building and construction works abstraction applications are often combined with applications on water discharge based on either a temporary or a permanent request related to a building phase or the long term operation of facilities.

Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013 Task A07-1 China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 82

Application and permits are required for establishing and cancelling boreholes whenever groundwater is involved. At least 9 different types of boreholes need permission21. In the following sections on applications and permits on abstraction of water such permissions on borings are a priori assumed to have been achieved.

Permissions will always be issued for a defined time period which cannot exceed 30 years. Permissions for abstraction of ground water for irrigation of crops must not be issued for more than 15 years. Surface water permissions must not exceed 10 years

5.5.1 Simple application process for abstraction permit

Municipalities determine local water supply plans and action plans for protection of water resources. Based on their access to background information they are the competent permitting authorities on water abstraction.

Abstraction of water for drinking water purposes or major irrigation schemes takes place in the open land in less densely populated municipalities, while abstraction of water in densely populated town areas like Copenhagen mainly takes place in relation to building and construction works. There are no ground water aquifers or surface water bodies delivering drinking water to the population in Copenhagen Municipality or for major irrigation schemes. In the following a distinction is made between applications and permissions for abstractions of surface and groundwater for water supply and irrigation in the open land and abstraction for building and construction works in Copenhagen Municipality.

5.5.2 Abstraction of drinking and irrigation water in the open land

Applications are forwarded to a municipality where an applicant will be informed about where to deliver the application, or via an internet link will advise on the correct address and what to do

For major abstractions of drinking water or irrigation in municipalities in the open land both applications and permissions must be prepared in two steps:

 Provisional application and permit  Final application and permit

This approach is justified from the uncertainties arising when abstraction fields are established or extended. A straight forward statement in the WFD says that the water table in abstraction fields must not change by time to sustain good ground water status. The sustainability of the supply capacity is tested before final applications and permits are prepared by making a procedure with provisional and final applications and permits separated by time.

21 Statutory Order on Establishing and Cancelling of Borings and Wells on Land, Bek. 1000 26/07/2007

Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013 Task A07-1 China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 83

Before initiation of bore works and pumping facilities the municipality must receive the provisional application with technical specifications. The municipality makes a technical evaluation of the project and decides on issuing a provisional permission.

The permission allows the applicant to start work. After normally one year the applicant forwards the final application, which shall include information on the experience achieved in addition to the information in the provisional application

According to this procedure permissions for abstraction of surface water will be valid for a period 10 years. For abstraction of ground water permissions will normally be valid for 15 years.

5.5.3 Abstraction in densely populated town areas

The simple permit application process on water abstraction described is based on the practice in Copenhagen Municipality. The Centre for Environment is the main authority concerning applications and permissions on groundwater. A link is available on the internet telling where to go and what to do. In some applications other Centres may be involved as well. The coordination between Centers takes place internally.

In a densely populated area Like Copenhagen, abstractions are most often temporary and tend to relate to construction and building works. Permanent and sometimes temporary abstractions of ground water are not allowed in the older parts of Copenhagen where buildings are drive piled on wood.

An application shall be worked out in accordance with requirements from the permitting authority (Centre). When all information is in place the application will either be rejected or permission will be issued. The administrative procedure has a duration of 4 weeks.

In response to the decisions by the authority on abstraction in both the open land and in densely populated areas a complaint from the applicant can be forwarded to an Environmental Appeal Board within 4 weeks. The Appeal Board will reconsider the decision or instruct the authority to remake the administrative procedure in case a decision has been made on a wrong or insufficient background.

5.5.4 Simple application forms

An application format and the information required in applications on abstraction of water is included in Statutory order on water Abstraction and Water Supply22.

Common information needed in all application forms includes:

22 BEK nr. 1451 11/12/2007

Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013 Task A07-1 China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 84

 Who is the applicant/builder and what is the exact address and eventually cadastre number/house-owner association, telephone number and e-mail address.

 Who has sent the application, telephone number and e-mail address

The last point shall be seen in the context that most applications are prepared by private

The level of Information to be delivered in an application as background information may be presented as shown in the following examples.

5.5.5 Example Abstraction of drinking and irrigation water in the open land

In case the abstraction application and permits shall be worked out in two steps. The temporary application must contain information as shown below 1) Description of purpose behind the abstraction application with a justification for the applied amount of water. In case it is an application for general supply of water then it must be described how the supply area shall be determined, how many users separated in user categories to be supplied and existing prognoses for water needs taking the future development into consideration. 2) Indication of the expected locations of the abstraction points and facilities, the expected abstraction area, the location of observation borings and location of stations in rivers for measuring fluctuation of surface water levels and flow. All information (1: 25,000) shown on maps in proper scale. All area related information to be shown with cadastre information. 3) An estimated assessment of the possibilities to abstract the amounts of water applied for and an estimated assessment of effects arising from abstracting water. If possible then information should be forwarded on the type of water to be abstracted with an assessment on whether it is suitable for the purpose. 4) For groundwater abstraction: Information about pollution or soil contamination which the applicant knows about within the abstraction area. For abstraction of surface water: Information about essential polluting conditions which the applicant knows about at or upstream the intake. 5) Specification of areas and user rights, which shall be achieved through expropriation, including ownership and cadastre information. To be presented on a map of proper scale. 6) A list of owners and users whom the applicant would like to see involved in negotiations and the decision procedure on permission.

If a temporary permission for water abstraction turns out to be successful, then a final and permanent application must be worked out and sent to the municipality with the following content, partly repeating the request for information in the preliminary application

1) Copy of report on new borings as specified in the temporary application

Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013 Task A07-1 China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 85

2) Chemical analyses of raw water for each boring. For abstraction of surface water the yearly variation of chemical analyses must be included as well. 3) Description of the planned abstraction facilities 4) An assessment of the supply capacity of the abstraction facilities based on survey monitoring in the field 5) A statement on the location of the abstraction facilities 6) An assessment of abstracted water as to the suitability as drinking water based on the results of chemical analyses 7) A description of how flush water shall be discharged and how sludge shall be treated and disposed 8) Description of how and where planned distribution pipes shall be located, what they shall be made of, their dimensions and the pressure in pipes. In addition a draft regulation on how the facility shall be managed and an estimate of unit price for supplied water to the consumers shall be provided. 9) Description of area to be affected, the existing use of the area, the need for expropriation with information on ownership and detailed maps 10) A list of owners and users whom the applicant would like to see involved in negotiations and the decision procedure on permission

For applications on water for irrigation many municipalities provide guidelines on the amount of abstracted water for irrigation purposes to be accepted. Such guidelines are presented to avoid unrealistic applications. Some examples are shown below.

 Crops on mixed sandy soils: 1.000 m³/ha/year  Other soil types: 750 m³/ha/year  Market gardening: 1.500 m³/ha/year  Gardening centres and sports fields: 2.000 m³/ha/year  Container and pottery culturing: 10.000 m³/ha/year  Greenhouses: 15.000 m³/ha/year  Golf courses: 2.000 m³/ha/year

Municipalities also provide guidelines to assist with information on acceptable minimum distances for abstraction locations in accordance with statutory orders on locating water abstraction facilities in relation to protected areas and polluting sites.

 5 m: minimum distance to boundary premises and high voltage cables in the soil or low voltage air lines  10 m: minimum distance to open ditches, water courses and high voltage air lines  25 m: minimum distances to manure containment facilities, animal barns, silage tanks, septic tanks, drain pipes, fascines for rainwater and oil tanks  50 m: minimum distance from trickling facilities for road water.

Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013 Task A07-1 China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 86

 100 m: minimum distance to abstraction boreholes, wells, churchyards and burial sites for dead animals.  150 m: minimum distance to percolation facilities for household waste water, manure heaps without bottom and ensilage deposits on bare soil  300 m: minimum distance to supply borings from public and private water works and private wells, protected water courses, lakes, meadows and moors, waste disposal sites and sites for disposal of waste water treatment sludge

Distance must be maintained to protect oil and gas pipes

5.5.6 Abstraction in densely populated town areas Abstraction of water in densely populated town areas is in this report assumed not to take place with the purpose to provide water for consumption or irrigation, but mostly for temporary or permanent lowering off groundwater tables at construction sites and with structures established in locations with high water tables or areas threatened by flooding.

Basic information required for this kind of abstraction activities is often also combined with an application for discharge of water

5.6 Example - Format and content a simple permission

Formats of permissions are not structured to be the same between municipalities in Denmark, but the content of permissions is comparable and relies on similar assessments.

The following example of a commented permission format is based on a concept from Norddjurs Municipality.

The concept refers to permission:

“Irrigation and water supply for drinking water from an abstraction facility located at Allingåbro. Final permission”.

In the following the overall content of the permission is shown with a commented approach

Statement and decision Norddjurs Municipality hereby issue permission to abstract groundwater for irrigation of field crops, gardening crops and for drinking water on the farm from boring nr. 70,346. The permission is given on the following conditions (and with reference to a number of laws and statutory orders):

1. Abstracted groundwater must only be used for irrigation and drinking water supply. If not - a new application must be made.

Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013 Task A07-1 China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 87

2. Specification of the allowed amount of abstracted water and how the water shall be used. 3. Sampling and analyses of water must be done and water quality parameters must not be exceeded as the water is abstracted also for drinking water purposes. Specification of sampling and analysis conditions (with reference to legislation). It is a demand that an accredited firm must do the sampling and the analyses. The firm is obliged to send a copy of the results to Norddjurs Municipality once a year. 4. The allowed abstracted amount of water and method of measurement is specified 5. Reporting to the municipality on abstracted amounts of water and periods of measurements 6. Existing pumps must be replaced with new pumps. The municipality must be informed of the new capacity of pumps 7. Specification of conditions, if new pumps are installed. 8. Drinking water shall be abstracted by separate pump. Indication that additional conditions may be required 9. The borehole must not be lowered without permission (102 m) 10. Specifications for correct installation and operation of pumps 11. Changes in the water table must be monitored twice a year and the results must be sent to the municipality and be available on request. 12. Restrictions on the use of chemicals within a 5 m zone around the borehole 13. Restrictions on the use of the area within a 300 m zone around the borehole 14. The permission is issued for a 10 year period

Basis for decision on permission Available information  Description of the farm and the production of crops  Distance from the borehole to pollution sources o Dung heap >25m o Manure tank >25 m o Silage tank >25 o Drain system 140 m o Rain water fascine >25 m o Oil tanks >30 m

Remarks from Norddjurs Municipality  Comments to the annual abstraction of water during the last ten years  Lack of measurements of changes to the ground water table and the future conditions  Description of arrangements around the boring  Comments on supervision

Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013 Task A07-1 China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 88

 Hydrogeological assessment of possible impact on a water course and a lake  Location of the nearest water abstraction facility  Location of other abstraction fields  Potential impacts on protected nature areas  Results of a EIA-screening indicating no essential impacts

Overall environmental and technical evaluation  Location of the abstraction point in the soil profile  Geological soil types in the profile and protection of the groundwater table  Former monitoring of the supply capacity at location

Publishing of the permission  Information on when and where the decision will be published

Guidance on appeal  Specification of procedure on appeal in case the permission or its content is not accepted by either organisations, authorities or individuals

List of organisations, authorities and persons informed about the decision  6 organisations and authorities. 3 individuals

The permission consists of 9 pages including 2 maps. It corresponds to other average permissions on water abstraction issued by municipalities in Denmark

For a more comprehensive permission on abstraction of water in the open land refer to:

“Final permission to abstract up to 2 million m3 groundwater each year from Bøgeskov supply field in Vejen Municipality”. Vejen Municipality. Nature, Environment & Building. The permission consists of 18 pages including 3 appendices. See appendix XX. To see an example of a temporary permission for both abstraction and discharge of water from a construction site in a densely populated town area refer to: “Temporary permission to discharge abstracted groundwater from Sankt Annæ Plads into Copenhagen harbour”. Copenhagen Municipality. Center for park and Nature. The permission consists of 9 pages.

Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013 Task A07-1 China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 89

5.7 Inspection and compliance assessment It is not necessary to repeat a detailed description of permitting, inspection and compliance assessments in Denmark with regard to:

 Quality assurance  Choice of Sampling Points in monitoring programs  Access, facilities and services  Sample bottles, storage and transportation  Laboratory analysis and choosing a method  Flow measurements

These topics are described in the UK sections 4.9. The Danish approach for addressing these topics does not deviate from the UK approach.

Inspection of conditions in permissions is in Denmark allocated to the authorities issuing permissions, which in accordance with the Environment Protection Law, Chapter 923 means the municipalities and EPA. There are no specifically appointed institutions or authorities doing only inspection and compliance assessments.

Inspection and compliance assessments are considered as an integrated routine activity in public administration in the municipalities and EPA. One reason is, that all abstraction and discharge permissions contain requirements on sampling, monitoring and reporting obligations as a self-control activity, which most often is delegated to independent, accredited firms, institutions and laboratories specialised in technical and environmental supervision and reporting.

The authorities have an obligation to do active inspection, but to some extent the compliance assessments is a desk job based on comparison of reported information and specified requirements of permissions – unless violation of conditions in a permission appears. In addition non-conformance with requirements of permissions very often turns up in consequence of complaints from the public and not necessarily as a result of site visits by the authority.

If any illegal or unpermitted activity is detected it is the obligation of supervising authority to see to that the activity is legalised. In that context the authority may for example

 Forbid the continuing operations of a facility  Order that the illegal conditions and associated effects shall be restored  Initiate restoration activities at the expenses of the offender  Change the conditions for future operation of facilities

23 Law on Protection of the Environment, LBK nr 879, 26.06.2010.

Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013 Task A07-1 China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 90

5.8 Enforcement Enforcement procedures for permissions are in Danish law supported by a broad spectrum of possible sanctions as indicated above. The legal background is laid down in the Environmental Protection Law, Chapter 9, 9a and 10 and a comprehensive guideline document24.

Generally, the procedures for enforcement of violated conditions in water related permissions with special reference to discharge permissions are scaled according to the level of the illegal activities and the degree of the readiness of the offender to remediate intended or unintended impacts from an illegal activity.

5.8.1 Admonition

An admonition (a warning in UK) procedure is applied, when a minor violation of conditions in a permission is discovered. It is forwarded by the authority in writing and it is the mildest and most frequently applied enforcement procedure. The admonition will include a deadline for correcting the illegal activity. If such a dead-line is not observed other enforcement procedures shall be taken into account.

An admonition does not change the judicial rights and obligations in an existing permission and accordingly the offender does not have access to any appeal court

5.8.2 Enforcement order

An enforcement order is applied when an authority discovers activities, which from the judgements of the authority, represent a risk for severe pollution or impacts in the environment without being illegal. It means that the authority, using an enforcement order, tightens the conditions and limits, or renew an existing permissions whereby the judicial rights and obligations of a permission are changed and can be taken to the appeal court by the owner of the permission.

If the new conditions in a permissions cannot be fulfilled the enforcement order can be used as background for prohibiting further operation of the facility.

5.8.3 Enjoinment

An enjoinment is an enforcement procedure in case severe violations in permissions are discovered. An enjoinment procedure does not include changes to the judicial rights and obligations of permissions and can for that reason not be brought to an appeal court. An enjoinment procedure may be initiated in continuation of an admonition procedure in case compliance dead-lines are neglected for remediation of illegal conditions.

24 Guidelines on Enforcement of the Environmental Protection Law. Guidelines from DEPA, nr. 6, 2005

Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013 Task A07-1 China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 91

If the requirements of an enjoinment are neglected beyond the dead-line, then the next step in severe cases of violation of permissions may be involvement of the police and the civil court system and ultimately prohibition of further operation of the facility.

5.8.4 Self-help activities

In addition to issuing administrative orders with the consequences described above the authority may initiate self-help activities whereby remediation measures are implemented at the expense of the offender. In self-help situations the police may be involved to ensure access to facilities and protection of the labour force, but as the offender must be informed by the authority in writing before self-help activities are initiated, he/she will normally take over the obligations without further discussions. In consequence initiated self-help activities are not very often initiated by the authorities. Exceptions may be related to abandoned or liquidated firms, whether they are still holding permissions or not.

However, in two situations there is an obligation for the authorities to initiate self-help activities without warning or further discussions:

 In case an immediate and imminent threat to human health and society arise as a consequence of violation of conditions in a permission  In case immediate mitigation measures are required to prevent severe pollution and its distribution as a consequence of violation of conditions in a permission

5.8.5 Loss of environmental liability A preventive enforcement initiative in Denmark is related to the concept: Loss of environmental liability. Loss of environmental liability means that companies or single persons with environmental management responsibilities are black-listed and consequently cannot or only with difficulties or under rigorous conditions can apply for permissions.

Enterprises and persons who have lost environmental liability are registered with Ministry of Environment for a period of 10 years. Criteria for registration of persons are described in the Environment Protection Law §110 b, but also people convicted after Code of Penal Law §196. Convictions after the Penal Law refers to persons who have been taken to court for very severe violations of the Environment Law. Other persons in the register have been fined for 10,000 kr. or more or have been to jail for violating the Environment Law. The last group of environmental offenders is people, who have a debt of 100.000 kr., without being amortised, to the public as a consequence of initiation of self-help activities by an environmental authority.

Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013 Task A07-1 China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 92

6 Chinese Approach to Water Regulation

6.1 Chinese Legal Framework-Water Protection and Regulation

The Water Law 2002 (WL02) is the basic law on water affairs. In addition to the Water law 2002, specific laws and administrative rules and regulations are formulated according to different needs and situations, local rules and regulations are also to be worked out in the light of local conditions, thus forming a relatively comprehensive water-related legal system, which can be easily enforced. The legal framework has four levels:

• Laws on water affairs issued by the National People’s Congress; • Administrative regulations on water matters issued by the State Council; • Ministerial rules and regulations issued by the Ministry of Water Resources, Ministry of Environmental Protection, or other related ministries; • Local and provincial rules and regulations issued by local people’s congress and governments of provinces, autonomous regions and municipalities directly under the central government.

The Water Law of People’s Republic of China (The Water Law 2002) is the fundamental law for regulation of water related activities. It declares that exploitation and utilization of water resources should be carried out under the principle of “Overall planning, consideration to all concerned, comprehensively utilizing, pursuing the benefits”. It sets up a water rights licensing system along with a compensation system, and marked the transition from a development phase focused almost exclusively on infrastructure development to a phase where attention was switched to the management and protection of water resources.

The Law on Administrative Licenses (by National People's Congress in 2003) is the governing law for the granting and management of water abstraction permits. This law made clear stipulations on many aspects of administrative permit, such as granting, responsible authorities and procedures, application procedures, examination and decisions, duration, hearing, amendment and renewal, special stipulations, fees, supervision and examination, and legal liabilities.

Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013 Task A07-1 China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 93

The Law on Prevention and Control of Water Pollution provides for the formulation of standards for water environment quality and pollutant discharge, supervision and management over prevention and control of water pollution, prevention of surface water and groundwater pollution, legal liabilities, etc.

The Regulation on Water Abstraction Permits and Water Resource Fee Collection (by the State Council in 2006) includes provisions on water abstraction applications and acceptance, examination and decisions of water abstraction permits, water resources fee collection and use management, supervision and management, and legal liabilities.

The Management Methods on Water Function Zones (in 2003) provides for many aspects of water function zones, such as definitions, grading, division, legal force, supervision and management, assessment of conservation, inspection of pollutant admittance capacity, cooperation with departments of environment conservation, water quality monitoring, announcements and circulars, water quality management of construction projects, management of river-entry pollutant discharge outlets, and legal liabilities.

Table 6.1.1 Chinese legal framework on water protection and regulation

Level Category Policies, laws and regulations National Laws • Water Law of the People's Republic of China; • Environmental Protection Law of the People's Republic of level China; • The Administrative Permit Law (P.R.C.); • The Law on Administrative Licenses; • Law of the People's Republic of China on Prevention and Control of Water Pollution; • Flood Control Law of the People's Republic of China; • Law of the People’s Republic of China on Environmental Impact Assessment; • Marine Environment Protection Law of the People's Republic of China. Administrative • Hydrological Ordinance of People's Republic of China; • Rules for Implementing the Law on Water Pollution; Rules and Prevention and Control; Regulations • Regulations on Management of water abstraction Permit and Water Resources Charges; • Measures for Implementing Water Administrative Licensing; • Regulations on River Administration of People's Republic of China; Regulations on Effluent Fees’ Collection, Usage and Management; • Regulation on Environmental Protection Management for Construction Projects; • Regulations on Prevention of Environment Pollution by Ship Scraping; • Measures for Implementing the Permit System for Water Abstraction; • Measures on the Administration of Water Resources; Demonstration of Construction Projects;

Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013 Task A07-1 China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 94

• Regulations Governing the Licensing for Water Drawing and the Levying for Water Resource Fees; • Provisional Measures for the Administration of the Water Pollutant Discharge Permit Department • Interim Measures for Water Allocation; • Measures for Managing Water-Drawing Permit; Regulations & • Measures for River Discharge Outlet Supervision and Regulatory Management; Documents • Interim Measures for Administration of Water Pollutants Discharge Permit; • Measures for Administration of Pollution Sources Monitoring; • Measures for Managing Offshore Environment Functional Division; • Regulations on Prevention and Control of Environment Pollution by Shipping in Inland Waters of The P.R.C; • Measures for Implementing Water Administrative Licensing; • Measures for Management of Water Function Zones; • Regulations on Managing Water-drawing Permit and Water Quality; • Measures for Prevention and Settlement of Interprovincial Water Disputes; • Interim Measures for Reporting Major Water Pollution Incidents; • Notice on Strengthening River Discharge Outlet Supervision and Management; • Policy of Sewage Prevention Technology for Printing and Dyeing Industry; • Technical Policy of Municipal Solid Waste Treatment and Pollution Prevention; • Notice on Granting Water Resources Commission of Haihe River Right to managing water abstraction Permit. Basin level Regulatory • Measures for Administration of Water Dispatching of the Yellow River; Documents • the Measures for the Administration of Key Water Pollutant Discharge Permit for the Huai River and Tai Lake Basins; • Provision on the System of Administrative Law-enforcement Responsibilities of the Water Resources Commission of Haihe River; • Notice on Enhanced Supervision and Management of Water Resources Evaluation of Construction Project in Haihe River Basin and water abstraction Permit; • Covenant on Coordinating Water Affairs along Provincial Borders in Haihe River Basin. Local level Administrative • the Beijing Provisional Regulation on the Administration of Pollutant Discharge Permit; Rules • Ordinance on Environment Protection in Tianjin Municipality; • Ordinance on Prevention and Control of Water Source; • Pollution Diverted from Luanhe River in Tianjin Municipality; • Ordinance on Water Resources Management in Beijing; • Ordinance on Environment Protection Management for Construction Projects in Hebei province; • Measures for Managing water abstraction Permit in Shandong Province; • Ordinance on Water Pollution Prevention and Control in Shandong Province; • Ordinance on Water Conservation Management in Henan Province. Government • Measures for Preventing Water Pollution in Tianjin Municipality;

Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013 Task A07-1 China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 95

Regulations • Regulations on Water Conservation in Beijing; • Measures for Managing water abstraction Permit in Hebei and Province; Regulatory • Interim Measures for the Administration of Urban documents Groundwater Resources in Hebei Province; • Rules on Water Administration and Supervision in Henan Province; • Rules for Implementing Environment impact Approval Level by Level for Construction Projects in Tianjin; • Notice on the Planning of Water Pollution Prevention and Control in Tianjin Municipality, Haihe River Basin; • Water Pollutant Discharge Standard (Pilot) in Beijing; • Notice of Beijing People’s Government on Intensified Management of Groundwater Resources through Delimiting Groundwater Excess, Over and Properly Exploited Regions in Plain Areas in Beijing; • Notice Issued by General Office of People’s Government in Hebei Province on Problems in Water Management; • Measures for Investigating Law Enforcement Liabilities of Environment Protection Bureau in Hebei Province; • Measures for Handling Environment Pollution Disputes in Shandong Province; • Regulations on Managing Watercourse Sand Quarrying in Henan Province.

6.2 Key Ministries-Roles and Responsibilities

The current institutional system of water resources management involves multiple government agencies at different levels as shown in Table 6.2.1 and Figure 6.2.1. There are 8 central government agencies that hold certain responsibilities of water resources management. On the local level, the subordinate departments of these agencies, as well as certain local governmental offices all play a role in water resources management. • Inconsistent policies and conflicting interests among different ministries on water and their lack of cooperation actually weaken water resources management, instead of building a combined force to increase the efficiency of water administration. • Although these ministries are entrusted with the administrative power related to water, their responsibilities are not clearly defined and there are significant overlaps, as illustrated for those of MWR and Ministry of Environmental Protection (MEP) Table 6.2.2. • The lack of effective coordination and cooperation among these administrative units impedes effective management of water resources and significantly increases the administrative transaction costs.

Table 6.2.1 Water-related government agencies under the State Council and their functions in water resources management (after Feng et al. 2006)

Department Scope of water administration Major responsibilities National Development Supervision of the planning of water Guidance on the planning of water and Reform resources development and resources development, allocation Commission (NDRC) ecosystem building. of production force and ecological

Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013 Task A07-1 China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 96

environment construction, coordination of the planning and policy of agriculture, forest and water resources development. Ministry of Water Surface and ground water Water resources survey and Resources (MWR) management, river basin assessment, planning of water management, flood control, water development and conservation, and soil conservation. flood control, water and soil conservation, designation of water function zones, unified water resources administration. Ministry of Prevention and control of water Water environment protection, Environmental pollution. water environment function zoning, Protection (MEP) establishment of national water environment quality standards and national pollutant discharge standards. Ministry of Housing Urban and industrial water use, Planning, construction and and Urban-Rural urban water supply and drainage. management of water supply Development projects, drainage and sewage (MHURD) disposal projects, urban water conservation. Ministry of Agriculture Agricultural water uses and fishery Construction and management of (MOA) habitat protection. irrigation infrastructure, irrigation water conservation, non-point source pollution control, protection of aquacultural environment, aquatic environmental conservation. State Forest Water resources conservation. Forest protection and management Administration (SFA) for protecting watershed ecology and water resources. Ministry of Transport Pollution control related to Pollution control and management (MOT) navigation of ships on rivers. of inland navigation. Ministry of Health Supervision and management of Supervision and management of the (MOH) environmental health. drinking water standards.

Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013 Task A07-1 China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 97

Figure 6.2.1 China’s institutional arrangement related to water resources management (after Khan and Liu 2008)

Table 6.2.2 Major overlaps and intersections of responsibilities undertaken by MWR and MEP on water resources protection and administration (adapted from Feng et al., 2006)

Responsibility Ministries involved Major overlaps in functions Water pollution control MWR and MEP  Both are involved in developing and designating water environment function zones  Both are involved in defining the relationship between the capacity of a water body to accept pollutants and the prevention of pollution of the watershed  Both have the responsibility of water quality monitoring Coordination and MWR and MEP  MEP has administrative authority and management of responsibility to guide and coordinate the trans-regional environmental problem and trans-boundary pollution pollution disputes control  Carrying the responsibility of watercourse management, MWR also has the power to manage and coordinate trans-boundary water pollution disputes

Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013 Task A07-1 China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 98

Enforcement of laws and MWR and MEP  Both have the responsibility for regulating regulations and pollutant discharges in river basins  Both have the authority to establish plans, supervision of water policies and regulations, to enforce management regulations, and to supervise the enforcement of laws and regulations Urban water resources MWR, MEP and  MWR and MEP both have the responsibility use, protection and MHURD on development, protection and management of urban water resources management  MHURD is responsible for urban  infrastructure construction projects related to the development of water resources and the protection of the water environment, including pipeline construction for water supply, drainage and sewers  All three ministries hold responsibilities regarding water supply, urban water recycling, drainage and sewerage handling and discharge monitoring

6.3 Roles of Provinces and River Basin Authorities

The central government allocated and managed water with a hierarchical administrative system through water-related departments at various levels. The people’s government of a province, autonomous region, or municipality directly under the Central Government may, determine the specific order sequence on the various items of water use. The drainage basin administration authorities shall, in accordance with the present Regulation and upon the authorization by the competent department of the water administration of the State Council, take charge of organizing and implementing, supervising and administering the license system of water drawing within their respective jurisdictional scopes (SCD460, article 3).

One significant step forward is the restructuring of China’s water administration system from a multi-sector administration into a more unified one (2002 Water Law, article 12). As a result, approvals of abstraction licenses are now solely administered by the MWR and its WRBs. This has ended the long-term bureaucratic conflicts and has improved efficiency in decision-making.

Seven river basin management committees (RBMCs) have been given more administrative authorities (2002 Water Law, article 48), and they were given greater authority in allocation and centralized control over all diversion projects. In reality, obscure delineation of authority and responsibilities among government agencies involved in water resources management at different levels undermines the ability of basin commissions to allocate water resources, coordinate water resources exploitation and conservation, and enforce water resources planning at the basin level. Instead, water resources administration is largely based on political boundaries rather than on watersheds. However, legislation does not provide a legal basis for the seven river basin management committees (RBMCs) to integrate an effective institutional process. This can be seen from several aspects:

Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013 Task A07-1 China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 99

• RMBCs’ administrative rights are rigorously restricted to those prescribed by legislation. The 2002 Water Law stated that China’s water resources management is a combination of jurisdictional management and river basin management. In other words, RBMCs have to share river basin management authority and responsibilities with provincial governments. Fundamental authorities such as fixing levels of abstraction charges and collecting them, distributing funds to protect water resources, supervising or penalizing negative abstraction activities are not given to RBMCs. • RBMCs can only approve or reject plans of abstraction from main streams of the rivers, but have no authority over abstraction from tributaries or ground sources. Such an approach does little to facilitate integrated river basin management, because it runs counter to the principle that main streams, tributaries and groundwater sources in a river basin are closely interrelated. • RBMCs lack an inherent system to share and discuss critical information on abstraction with provincial governments, such as the annual amount of abstraction licenses given by local authorities. As a result, it is nearly impossible for RMBCs to enforce systems of total abstraction quantity control. • Current legislation does not enable RBMCs to establish a commission of stakeholders from provincial, prefectural and county levels, or have consultative mechanisms to bring in voices of communities and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). This greatly reduces the benefits of public supervision and participation in river basin management.

6.4 Three red Lines On 12 January 2012, the State Council released the Opinions on Implementing the Strictest Water Resources Management System, which is the overall layout and specific arrangements that the State Council has made since the 2011 No.1 Document and the Central Work Conference on Water Conservancy explicitly required the implementation of the strictest water resources management system, and a principal document guiding water-related efforts in China at present and for a period to come. The document states the necessity of implementing a strict water resources control system, and explicitly specifies the main measures to be taken in three Red Lines-control of the development and use of water resources, control of water use efficiency, and restriction of pollutants in water functional areas.

The control targets for the "Three Red Lines" include controlling total quantity of water consumption nationwide within 700billion m3 by 2030, attaining or approaching the world advanced level of water use efficiency, reducing water consumption per RMB10,000 industrial value added to below 40 m3 and raising effective water use coefficient of farmland irrigation water to above 0.6 by 2030, and controlling total quantity of major pollutants discharged into rivers and lakes within the pollutant absorption capacity of the water function areas and raising water quality compliance rate in such areas to higher than 95% by 2030.

Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013 Task A07-1 China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 100

To attain the above targets and with reference made to the12th Five-Year Plan for National Economic and Social Development, No. 1 Document of 2011, the four systems should be constructed: • First, the total amount of water control. • Strengthen the control red line management of water resources development and utilization, strict implementation of the total water control to include strict planning and management and the water resources assessment, take strict control of the river basin and regional total water use, strict implementation of water licensing, strict compensation for the use of water resources, strict groundwater management protection, strengthen the unified control of water resources. • The second is the efficiency of water control systems. • Enhance the efficiency of water use to control the red line management, and comprehensively promote the construction of water-saving society, including the overall strengthening of the management of water conservation, water conservation throughout the economic and social development and the life of the masses the whole production process, strengthen the water quota management, speeding up saving technological transformation. • Third, water function area limit assimilative system. • Strengthen water functional areas to limit pollutant carrying red line management, strictly control the total amount of emissions into rivers and lakes, including strict supervision and management of the water function area, to strengthen the protection of drinking water sources, and to promote the protection and restoration of aquatic ecosystems. • Fourth, water resource management responsibilities and appraisal system. • The development and utilization of water resources, conservation and protection of the main indicators into local economic and social development of a comprehensive evaluation system, the main person in charge of the people's government at or above the county level is the overall responsibility of the administrative area of water resources management and protection work.

On 2 January 2013, the State Council promulgated the Assessment Method for Implementing the Strictest Water Resources Management System, attaining the control targets for the "Three Red Lines" Table 6.4.1, 6.4.2 and 6.4.3.

Table 6.4.1 The control targets of total quantity of water consumption (108 m3)

Provinces, Autonomous Regions, or 2015 2020 2030 Municipalities

Beijing 40.00 46.58 51.56

Tianjin 27.50 38.00 42.20

Hebei 217.80 221.00 246.00

Shanxi 76.40 93.00 99.00

Inner Mongolian 199.00 211.57 236.25

Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013 Task A07-1 China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 101

Liaoning 158.00 160.60 164.58

Jining 141.55 165.49 178.35

Heilongjiang 353.00 353.34 370.05

Shanghai 122.07 129.35 133.52

Jiangshu 508.00 524.15 527.68

Zhejiang 229.49 244.40 254.67

Anhui 273.45 270.84 276.75

Fujian 215.00 223.00 233.00

Jiangxi 250.00 260.00 264.63

Shandong 250.60 276.59 301.84

Henan 260.00 282.15 302.78

Hubei 315.51 365.91 368.91

Hunan 344.00 359.75 359.77

Guangdong 457.61 456.04 450.18

Guangxi 304.00 309.00 314.00

Hainan 49.40 50.30 56.00

Chongqing 94.06 97.13 105.58

Sichuan 273.14 321.64 339.43

Guizhou 117.35 134.39 143.33

Yunnan 184.88 214.63 226.82

Xizang 35.79 36.89 39.77

Shaanxi 102.00 112.92 125.51

Gansu 124.80 114.15 125.63

Qinghai 37.00 37.95 47.54

Ningxia 73.00 73.27 87.93

Xinjiang 515.60 515.97 526.74

National 6350.00 6700.00 7000.00

Table 6.4.2 The control targets of water use efficiency

2015 Provinces, Autonomous Regions, Reducing the 2010 level of water Effective water use or Municipalities consumption per RMB10,000 coefficient of farmland industrial value added irrigation water

Beijing 25% 0.710

Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013 Task A07-1 China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 102

Tianjin 25% 0.664

Hebei 27% 0.667

Shanxi 27% 0.524

Inner Mongolian 27% 0.501

Liaoning 27% 0.587

Jining 30% 0.550

Heilongjiang 35% 0.588

Shanghai 30% 0.734

Jiangshu 30% 0.580

Zhejiang 27% 0.581

Anhui 35% 0.515

Fujian 35% 0.530

Jiangxi 35% 0.477

Shandong 25% 0.630

Henan 35% 0.600

Hubei 35% 0.496

Hunan 35% 0.490

Guangdong 30% 0.474

Guangxi 33% 0.450

Hainan 35% 0.562

Chongqing 33% 0.478

Sichuan 33% 0.450

Guizhou 35% 0.446

Yunnan 30% 0.445

Xizang 30% 0.414

Shaanxi 25% 0.550

Gansu 30% 0.540

Qinghai 25% 0.489

Ningxia 27% 0.480

Xinjiang 25% 0.520

National 30% 0.530

Table 6.4.3 The control targets of water quality compliance rate in key water function areas of rivers and lakes

Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013 Task A07-1 China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 103

Provinces, Autonomous Regions, or 2015 2020 2030 Municipalities Beijing 50% 77% 95%

Tianjin 27% 61% 95%

Hebei 55% 75% 95%

Shanxi 53% 73% 95%

Inner Mongolian 52% 71% 95%

Liaoning 50% 78% 95%

Jining 41% 69% 95%

Heilongjiang 38% 70% 95%

Shanghai 53% 78% 95%

Jiangshu 62% 82% 95%

Zhejiang 62% 78% 95%

Anhui 71% 80% 95%

Fujian 81% 86% 95%

Jiangxi 88% 91% 95%

Shandong 59% 78% 95%

Henan 56% 75% 95%

Hubei 78% 85% 95%

Hunan 85% 91% 95%

Guangdong 68% 83% 95%

Guangxi 86% 90% 95%

Hainan 89% 95% 95%

Chongqing 78% 85% 95%

Sichuan 77% 83% 95%

Guizhou 77% 85% 95%

Yunnan 75% 87% 95%

Xizang 90% 95% 95%

Shaanxi 69% 82% 95%

Gansu 65% 82% 95%

Qinghai 74% 88% 95%

Ningxia 62% 79% 95%

Xinjiang 85% 90% 95%

National 60% 80% 95%

Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013 Task A07-1 China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 104

6.5 Water Protection Zones (Water Functional Area)

Water functional zone is the basis for water resources development and protection and is shown in Figure 6.5.1. The fundamental goal of the water function zoning in China is to distinguish different parts of the river or lake and make a clear division of control targets on the basis of water’s natural features, social services, and ecological functions (China Ministry of Water Resources, 2007). The State Council has officially approved the National Water Function Zoning in Major Rivers and Lakes. Through the integrated quantity-quality assessment of available water resources in water functional zone, different water quantity, quality, pollutant capacity and the quantity of pollutant reduction etc. can be provided, which is beneficial for water administration to finely control water quantity and quality, define important protection zone and improve the distribution of water resources in different water functional zones.

Water function zoning is to reasonably regionalize the whole basin according to certain indicators and standards based on natural properties (resource status, environmental conditions and geographic location) and social attributes (utilization level of water resources, demand of social advancement on water quality and quantity) of water resources. At present, China’s water function zones are divided into Grade 1 Water Function Zone and Grade 2 Water Function Zone for the purpose of management. Among them, Grade 1 Water Function Zone falls into four types: protection zone, buffer zone, development & utilization zone and preservation zone; in Grade 2 Water Function Zone, the development & utilization zone is further classified into 7 sub-types: zone for potable water resource, industrial use, agriculture use, commercial fishery, landscape and recreational use, transition zone and sewage discharge control zone. Grade 1 division aims to adjust relationship between water resources utilization and protection in macroscopic view, considering regional coordination and sustainable development. The fundamental purpose of subdivision is to determine the functions of water, and coordinate the relationship between different sectors.

China has divided its major rivers and lakes into nearly 4,500 water functional areas, and carry out differentiated protection and management of different water areas, according to a division plan approved by the State Council and released by the Ministry of Water Resources. The ministry aims to increase the proportion of water functional areas meeting national water quality standards to 80 percent by 2020 and to nearly 100 percent by 2030.

Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013 Task A07-1 China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 105

Figure 6.5.1 Water function zoning system

6.6 Current Permits

6.6.1 How are they set/modelled and river need calculations?

The system for issuing and managing permits has been revised following SCD460. Permits will now be issued on the basis of a more systematic assessment of water resources, with the intention that the permitted volume should be no greater than the sustainable resource. This requires assessment of water resources through water monitoring and modelling; the issuance and enforcement of permits; and the adjustment of annual allocations until a sustainable situation is reached.

6.6.2 Environmental Flow

The water regime is the most important factor that shapes freshwater ecosystems. China’s 2002 Water Law requires that the water planning process “pay attention to maintaining the rational river flow and the rational water level of lakes, reservoirs and groundwater and to maintaining the natural purification capacity of water system”. All aspects of the flow regime are potentially important to the environment and this natural variability needs to be accounted for in allocating and managing water resources. The development and utilisation of water resources must be balanced with the impacts on the natural environment and the various goods and services that rivers provide to society. This balancing act is now a fundamental element of water resources planning, allocation, and management. It affects decisions on where water infrastructure will be built, how it will be operated, and generally how much water can be abstracted for consumptive purposes. These decisions need to be made with an understanding and consideration of the impacts on environmentally important flows.

The volume of water available for abstraction is then the difference between the total water resources available and the environmental flow. Importantly, environmental flow requirements can vary significantly between different types of rivers and these differences need to be

Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013 Task A07-1 China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 106 understood and allowed for in river management. The requirements for successfully providing environmental flows will vary significantly depending on the political, environmental, and water resource development context. The implementation of environmental flows requires managing water resources to provide and protect those flows identified as important during the water resource assessment process. This can require regulation of some or all of the following: • the total volume of water allowed to be abstracted from the river: which will determine the share of the total volume that is retained within the river to meet environmental requirements. • the timing, rate and antecedent conditions that govern water abstractions or releases: which will influence the pattern of the flow regime. • the design of in-stream infrastructure: which will influence the extent to which infrastructure is physically able to achieve the desired operational releases (e.g. based on the capacity of reservoir gates) and minimise impacts on connectivity (e.g. through fish ladders). • the location of in-stream infrastructure: which can be located so as to minimize the disturbance of key ecological assets, loss of connectivity and adverse impacts on flow regimes.

The current approach in China is to assign water allocations on the basis of average water resource availability. This means that half the time, there is insufficient water available to meet all the allocations in full, so that some degree of rationing will be required. Water allocations should therefore be made on the basis of the water resources available with a return period of 1 in 10 years.

Where the rules are so defined, this can remove the need to consider environmental requirements on a case-by case basis. Provided the allocation, abstraction, and management rules have been carefully specified, compliance with the rules should ensure that the required flows are provided and the broader environmental outcomes are achieved.

6.6.3 Water Drawing Permits

Legislative requirements for permitting

The Water Law 2002 (WL02) lays down the requirement for a water withdrawal/drawing/abstraction permit system (WAPS) and for water resources fees (WRFs) based on volumetric measurement. The regulations are given in State Council Decree of PRC No. 460 of 2006, “Regulation for Water Drawing Permit and Collection and Management of Water Resources Fee”. In August 2006 the DWR/MWR issued a detailed report entitled “Practical Procedures for Water Drawing Permit and Collection and Management of Water Resources Fee” with new permit and registry forms, and instructions and procedures to complement SCD 460. MWR is in the process of approving five sets of measures to implement SCD 460. The “Measures for Administration of Water Abstraction Permits” was issued with MWR Decree 34 in April 2008.

Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013 Task A07-1 China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 107

SCD 460 lays down the general regulations for strengthening management and protection of water resources, and promoting the conservation and rational development and utilization of water resources in accordance with the provisions of the Water Law of the People’s Republic of China) [Article 1]. In the present context, the key requirement is that: In order to draw water, any unit or individual shall apply for a water drawing permit and pay water resources fee [Article 2]. The decree goes on to state the need for the permits to take of a comprehensive water resources assessment, so that the total permitted volume does not exceed the exploitable resources or the local water allocation plan: “Article 6 Implementation of the water drawing permit system must accord with comprehensive water resources plans, comprehensive river basin plans, mid to long term water demand and supply plans and water function zoning plans, and abide by water allocation plans approved in accordance with provisions of the Water Law; if the water allocation plan has not been formulated, the water allocation agreement signed between local people’s governments shall be observed. Article 7 In implementation of the water drawing permit system, consideration shall be given to both surface water and groundwater, and to the principles of combining water supply expansion with water conservation, with priority given to conservation, and combining total amount control with quota based management. The total amount of water consumption with approved water drawings in a river basin shall not exceed the amount of exploitable water resources in the river basin”.

The details of the requirements for permitting are laid down more explicitly in “Measures for Administration of Water Abstraction Permits” issued with MWR Decree 34 (April 9, 2008). This states that: • The total permitted amount of water abstraction in a river basin must not exceed the utilizable amount of water resources in the river basin as approved by the state. • The total permitted amount of water abstraction in an administrative jurisdiction must not exceed the amount of water abstraction approved at the next upper level (Article 4).

The granting of permits for the use of water

According to the provisions of SCD 460, water use permit applicants shall file their applications directly to the water use permit review and approval authorities. Permits are issued with a five-year validity, and will then need to be renewed. See Figure 6.6.3. This renewal process will essentially be the same as the initial issuance, although much of the data will be unchanged. The review will take account of updated assessments of water resource availability, and changes in cropping, irrigation methods and other related factors. Typically, the process which results in the grant - or denial - by the government of a permit for the use of water is structured in the legislation as a sequence of steps, as follows: • filing of an application; • review of applications;

Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013 Task A07-1 China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 108

• deciding on applications; • formatting of permits; • recording of decisions and permits; • appealing from adverse decisions.

Submitting Applications Incomplete or unclear 5 d Acceptance for application

Complete and meet legal requirement No t fall within the scope of refused Acceptance for application acceptance Application process Public interests involved? Y Hearing/inquiry N Others interests involved? Y Inform others N Approval or not within 45 d Reasons given N Y

Decisions on the License

Valid term :3 a Construction starting without construction

Modification Issuing Examination after 30d N procedure process ok License granted

Figure 6.6.3 The granting of permits for the use of water

If approved, the approval documents should include details of: • Water volumes and qualities, purposes of water abstraction, abstraction quantities and their corresponding availability probabilities; • Locations where water is returned, quantity and quality of return flow; • Water use quotas and the relevant water saving requirements; • Requirements for water measurement; • Measures for restricting water abstraction under special conditions; • Arrangements for issuance of water abstraction permits.

Content of the Water License

Examples of Water Licence are shown in Figure 6.6.4.

Article 24 of the Water Abstraction Permit Regulation details the required contents of a Water License. This includes: • name of the water abstraction unit or individual (surname and first name);

Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013 Task A07-1 China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 109

• duration for water abstraction; • water abstraction volume and water abstraction purposes; • type of water sources; • water abstraction location, discharging location, discharging method and volume.

Figure 6.6.4 Examples of water abstraction permit

Water resource assessment Water resources assessment (WRA) is the process of measuring, collecting and analysing relevant parameters on the quantity and quality of water resources for the purposes of a better development and management of water resources. This is shown diagrammatically in Figure 6.6.5

Conducting water resources assessment helps clarifying the following issues: • Current status of water resources at different scales, including inter-and intra-annual variability; • Current water use (including variability), and the resulting societal and environmental

Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013 Task A07-1 China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 110

trade-offs; • Scale related externalities, especially when patterns of water use are considered over a range of temporal and spatial scales; • Social and institutional factors affecting access to water and their reliability; • Opportunities for saving or making more productive, efficient and/or equitable; • Efficacy and transparency of existing water-related policies and decision making processes; • Conflicts between existing information sets, and the overall accuracy of government (and other) statistics.

Figure 6.6.5 Components of Water Resources Assessment (Adapted from UNESCO and WMO 1997)

Management of permits

Water allocation decisions are crystallised in permits, but are not cast in concrete as a result. Circumstances may change. The government department or agency in charge of administering the permit system has to be in a position to react to change, and to adjust permits to the new circumstances: • A new national or regional water master plan may come into being, requiring adjustments in the water resources allocation pattern as crystallized in as many permits as are in operation at any given point in time. • A prospective user may seek water which has already been allocated under a permit. If the utilization applied for is regarded by the government decision maker as preferable to the one which already exists, it may be necessary to sacrifice the latter. • A drought or other emergency may strike, forcing the government to curtail allocations under the existing permits. • The permit holder himself may request that his permit be amended in certain respects, or

Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013 Task A07-1 China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 111

he may decide to relinquish it before its expiration date. On expiration of his permit, a permit holder may wish to have it continue for an additional term.

Such machinery typically consists of: • The review and variation of the terms and conditions of permits; • The suspension or cancellation of a permit under given circumstances including, in particular, for breach of legal provisions; • The renewal of permits on expiration; • And the transfer of a permit from one water user to another.

Problems in water abstraction permitting

Up to 2011, there were about 440,000 water drawing permits in China. The procedures required by the national and provincial regulations are well-defined and sound. Implementation of the permits, however, may not be entirely straightforward, because of the huge number of permits, the accuracy of water resource assessments, the administrative systems, and the difficulties of ensuring compliance with the permits.

• Insufficient standard in water abstraction permitting • Water abstracted for agriculture in most areas have not been included in water permitting system; • No water resource assessment in some permits; • The utilization efficiency of water resources have not been included in the water license management; • Total amount of water over approved; • The total amount of water permitted shall not exceed the utilizable amount of water resources of the drainage basin concerned, but the daily and seasonal variation is not considered. • Insufficient supervision and administration • Daily supervision and management is not in place; • Insufficient inspection and examination of the permit; • A high percentage of water users that remain un-metered; • Metering of groundwater in particular is very limited; • Lack of permit audit. • Low level of information technology in water abstraction permit management: • As information systems are still paper-based and copies of permits are held in various locations, it is increasingly difficult to maintain good record keeping standards; • Water permit account system is still in construction; • Lack of information sharing; • Less release of water abstraction information.

Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013 Task A07-1 China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 112

6.6.4 Water Pollution/Water Quality Permits The pollutant discharge permit system is one of the principal methods of controlling pollution in China. • The permit system applies from the time prior to the pollutant discharge to the time after the discharge. Therefore, it applies not only to pollution prevention, but also to the processing and monitoring of pollution as well as to the administration of post-pollution remedies. • The pollutant discharge permit system applies individually and collectively with other pollution control laws to enhance the effectiveness of pollution regulation. • The pollutant discharge permit system drafts forceful administrative regulations by ensuring that its procedures have clear criteria, and that the system conforms to the modern spirit of the law. • The strict procedures implemented by the pollutant discharge permit system are necessary to ensure that the environmental authorities supervise an enterprise's pollution discharge and constrain the environmental authorities' discretion.

China's pollutant discharge permit system establishes the goal of improving environmental quality by focusing on the total quantity control of the pollutant. It consists of the following four main components: • Polluter registration; • Planning and distribution of pollution discharge indexes; • Application, approval, and issuance of pollutant discharge permits; • Supervision and inspection of the implementation of pollutant discharge permits.

Typically, the grant-or refusal-by the government of a waste discharge permit is the resultant of a process which is structured in the legislation as a sequence of steps – Figure 6.6.6, as follows: • Fulfilling requirements precedent to the filing of applications • Filing of applications • Review of applications • Deciding on applications • Formatting of waste discharge permits • Appealing from adverse decisions • Recording of decisions and permits

Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013 Task A07-1 China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 113

Figure 6.6.6. The granting of permits for discharge

Examples of discharge permit are given in Figure 6.6.7

In order to make the discharge permit system a part of the basic and effective environmental protection laws in China, the discharge permit system must: • Be independent from the framework of the total pollutant load control system and be treated as a comprehensive environmental control and management system. The discharge permit is the threshold for any discharge; without a permit, any pollutant discharge is forbidden. • Protect the public interest, and improve permitting procedures and enable public participation in the discharge permitting process. • Improve the permit implementation mechanism. Strong government enforcement is especially needed, but citizen enforcement and oversight, as well as self-enforcement also play important roles in the enforcement of the discharge permit system. Encouraging public participation in the permit system and making public involvement readily accessible to the general public is also essential for overcoming the government’s limitations in enforcing

Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013 Task A07-1 China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 114

and protecting the public interest.

Figure 6.6.7 Examples of discharge permit

6.7 Monitoring

6.7.1 Monitoring of Permit Compliance In recent years, MWR has strengthened the water quantity and water quality monitoring of surface water, groundwater, and strengthened water resources evaluation and analysis. But overall, the current water resources monitoring cannot meet the requirements for implementing the strictest water resources management system. The Chinese regulations for permitting of water abstraction as well as wastewater discharge into water bodies do not enable adequate monitoring for compliance and enforcement. The required permits are not integrated (quantity,

Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013 Task A07-1 China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 115 efficiency and quality) and critically, the permits are too simply worded and do not cover in adequate unambiguous details and precision the obligations of the permit holder with regard to Emission Limit Values (ELV), mixing zones, Best Available Technologies (BAT) requirements, monitoring and inspection, reporting requirement, sources and data to be reported, specific operation condition changes which would require a reassessment of the permit, penalties to be incurred in case of breach of permit, and more.

Obviously, the tasks associated with clearly establishing water abstraction permit system and pollution discharge permit system and then ensuring compliance with these is highly complex and of considerable magnitude. Each issue needs to be looked at holistically as part of a thoroughly planned and executed, integrated, strategic approach. The barriers and challenges that must be addressed to fulfil this task include: • lack of knowledge and understanding of the permits; • poor attitudes and ‘cultures’ of agency staff towards communication, sharing of information and enforcement; • poor communication and attitudes towards government by water users; • initial poor perspectives of WUA’s by water users in some areas; • lack of data and mechanisms to verify compliance; • inadequate resources to properly monitor and enforce where required; • lack of history and capacity for transparency and accountability; • potential for inconsistencies through nepotism and partiality.

In order to strengthen the management of water permits, MWR started to build a nationwide water license registration system in late 2012, Figure 6.6.8. Detailed registration information includes name of the abstractor, legal representative of water permit, water abstraction location, pattern of water drawing, amount of water drawing, water use, water resource, water withdrawal, water quality of withdrawal, the examination and approval authority, supervision and inspection authorities, water permit valid information, etc.

Figure 6.6.8 Water permit registration system

Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013 Task A07-1 China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 116

6.7.2 Monitoring of receiving environment

Water resources monitoring is an important basic work for water resources management and protection. Water quantity monitoring is mainly conducted by water resource departments, while water quality monitoring is conducted by water resource departments and departments of environment conservation within their respective range of duties. Water quality monitoring in water function regions is conducted by water resource departments; departments of environment conservation and water resource departments are responsible for water quality of provincial-boundary interfaces. Subsidiary legislation prescribes various matters related to sampling and testing: • procedures, standard methodologies and techniques; • the circumstances which qualify a grant of authority to government officials to carry out sampling and testing; • record-keeping; • sampling methods and the effects which follow from the results of a test.

In 2012, MWR begun to construct national water resource monitoring system, and planned to complete it in 3 years. Focussing on the "Three Red Lines", the system includes important water abstractors monitoring system, important water functional areas monitoring system, and the main provincial sections monitoring system based on routine checks and sample reviews.

Figure 6.7.1 Shows the current overview of this need.

Figure 6.7.1 Functions of capacity-building project on national water resource monitoring

Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013 Task A07-1 China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 117

6.8 Enforcement and Sanctions

Offences and penalties can be regarded as an integral part of law enforcement, i.e. of mechanisms and processes aimed at ensuring compliance with the law in general. In general, these include fines and imprisonment and, under the appropriate circumstances, non-conventional measures such as suspension or cancellation of a permit. Also, a special use of fines is made in connection with water abstraction or water pollution control offences, consisting of fining an illegal abstraction/discharge on a daily basis for as long as the illegal abstraction/discharge continues.

According to the provisions of SCD 460, supervision and administration of the implementation of license for water drawing is conducted by the competent department of water administration of the people's government at the county level or above or the drainage basin authority (Article 38). These administrative penalties could be taken as: • If the circumstance is slight, the competent department of water administration, of a local people's government at the county level or above the drainage basin authority or other relevant department or any of its working staff shall be ordered by the administrative organ or supervisory organ at the higher level to make a correction; • if the circumstance is serious, the directly responsible person-in-charge and other persons held to be directly liable shall be given administrative sanctions in accordance with the law; • if any crime is constituted, it/he shall be subject to criminal liabilities in accordance with the law.

6.9 Charging/Cost recovery

The Water Law 2002 (WL02) lays down the requirement for a water withdrawal/drawing/abstraction permit system (WAPS) and for water resources fees (WRFs) based on volumetric measurement. The intent of the State is to recover a portion of the operational water management costs for public use of water through a resources fee and for facilities and services provided by suppliers (government or other) through water charges. Figure 6.9.1 shows the components of this in overview.

MWR Document 79 includes detailed provisions for most aspects of WRFs. These include stipulations on the scope of water resources fee collection, methods of calculation and collection of water resources, authority for water resources fee collection, procedures for reporting on and verification of amount of water abstraction, installation of water abstraction metering instrument, delivery of notice on water resources fee payment, sharing proportions of collected water resources between the central and local authorities and the procedures of payment to treasury, bills for water resources collection, scope for the use of collected water resources fee, and administrative authority and their duties of supervision and service, etc.

As the central government did not provide a clear target of abstraction, the only charge-setting principle given by central government to local governments is that both scarcity and ability to

Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013 Task A07-1 China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 118 pay should be considered while fixing the abstraction charges (The 2006 Regulation on Management of Water Abstraction Licenses and Water Resource Charge, article 29). A common practice among provinces is to assess charges based on the actual abstraction volume and a unit charge rate, which is determined by the types of users and abstraction sources. In general, levies for abstractions are calculated as follows:

{ ( )

where, for type of users i that withdraw water from source j , Lij is the total levies, Vij is the actual volume of water withdrawn, Rij is the unit charge rate, Pij is the volume of water permitted on the abstraction license. If the actual abstraction exceeds the permitted abstraction, a progressively higher charge rate Eij is levied on the excess volume. Both R and E are set by provincial governments and vary by type of user and source of abstraction.

Figure 6.9.1 Components of water price in China

Although the charge-setting principle sounds equitable, major problems exist in: • The water resource fee collection standards are generally poor. • Insufficient charge collection is a common phenomenon in many areas, particularly in remote and rural places. • Few monitoring equipment is operating accurately. • Low standard in the use of water resources fee, and existence of embezzlement. • Supervision and management of water resource fee is not in place.

Therefore, emphasis will be laid on: • Adjustment of water resources fee collection standards as soon as possible. The national development and Reform Commission, Ministry of finance, and the Ministry of water resources have jointly issued “Circular on issues concerning the collection of standard of water resources fee”, and provided the lowest levy standard of WRF till 12th Five-year of

Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013 Task A07-1 China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 119

China –Table 6.9.2 • Full collection of water resources fee. • Water resources fee collection based on accurate water volumes metering. • Standardize use of water resources fee-less than 60% of the fee used for water resource conservation, protection and management.

Table 6.9.2 Lowest levy standard of WRF till 12th Five-year of China (Yuan/m3)

Areas Average levies for Average levies for surface water underground water Beijing 1.6 4 Tianjin Shanxi 0.5 2 Inner Mongolia Hebei 0.4 1.5 Shandong Henan Liaoning 0.3 0.7 Jilin Heilongjiang Ningxia Shannxi Jiangshu 0.2 0.5 Zhejiang Guangdong Yunnan Gansu Xinjiang Shanghai 0.1 0.2 Anhui Fujian Jiangxi Hubei Hunan Guangxi Hainan Chongqin Sichuan Guizhou Xizang Qinghai

6.10 Supervision and inspection

According to the provisions of SCD 460, supervision and administration of the implementation of license for water drawing is conducted by the competent department of water administration

Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013 Task A07-1 China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 120 of the people's government at the county level or above or the drainage basin authority, and the supervision and administration of the levy and use of water resource fees is conducted by the competent department of water administration, the administrative department of public finance, and the competent department of price of the people's government at the county level or above (Article 38).

Supervision and inspection could be laid on: • water resource assessment • water abstraction permitting; • water use planning; • levy and use of water resource fee; • water function areas; • sewage outlet to the river.

Efforts should be focused on checking whether the Three Red Lines are established and conducting regular reviews about the compliance with the four indicators, i.e., total quantity of water consumption, effective water use coefficient of farmland irrigation water, water consumption per RMB10,000 industrial value added, and water quality compliance rate in water function areas, and as to whether the accountability and performance assessment system for water resources management is effectively implemented, and whether the strictest water resources management system is effectively put into place.

6.11 Public Access to information

Public participation is conducive to ensuring the fairness of water policy implementation and the policy improvement. And information disclosure is the premise of the public participation, because the public know more about the local water resources condition and the existing problem. At present, China has not established a unified water information system. For example, water permit issuance quantity and the examination result, annual water abstraction amount, annual water consumption, levy and use of water resource fee, also need to be timely, continuously to the public. The lack of information disclosure supervision hindered public participation opportunities.

Future works should be focused on: • Establishment of information-sharing system; • Full use of national and local mainstream media, strengthening in-depth understanding of the permits to the public; • Increased public participation.

Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013 Task A07-1 China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 121

7 Proposals for Review and Reform of Water Permits in China

7.1 Justification and overview

Proposals for review and reform of water resource permits in China have been the subject of discussion by the group throughout the project. Information from the previous EU China RBMP programme and the SKE report on Ecological Quality, led by Philippe Bergeron25 has also been reviewed. Current best practice in the EU and China has been considered and developed in the previous sections, which have led to the recommendations and ideas developed through this project.

The importance of a secure and progressive water regulatory regime, backed by a logical and fully enforced permit system is recognised by all as an important goal. Strong regulation is essential to allow China to maintain and improve water security, improve the supply of water for domestic and industrial use, and to improve environmental quality. The need to prioritise water infrastructure expenditure, committed in the 2011 Number 1 Document, to take strategic decisions on a river basin basis, and the optimisation of water resource are all key factors. Ultimately public health, economic growth and environmental quality will deteriorate if this is not managed in an integrated and progressive way.

However, there remain significant doubts about the ability of the devolved water management system in China to deliver the improvements and to make the essential links between water resource availability, water quality and required water abstraction limits and water quality discharge standards. There are large gaps in the water regulatory cycle that need significant improvement if changes are to be made.

The issue of split responsibility for water management causes frustration and lack of ability to make changes. Many think this is too difficult to solve in China! The unclear responsibilities between the MWR and MEP cause lack of strategic direction between water quantity and water quality planning that is magnified in inconsistency in permitting. This is exacerbated by

25 SKE Project 2012 – China Europe Water Platform Knowledge Centre

Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013 Task A07-1 China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 122 variable quality and capability to determine permit conditions at Provincial level. This influences protective water allocation; permit conditions, enforcement and prosecution actions. This is made worse by the conflicts of interest that are known to occur at local level. These conflicts include the pressure to promote economic growth, whilst needing to preserve and protect water resources, on a catchment basis. There is an overriding need for clarity of responsibility and for a single and accountable lead organisation. The EU has developed the role of ‘Competent Authority’ to deliver EU Directives and to ensure accountability and delivery. This could be developed for China and the group suggests that MWR is given this role for overall delivery of quality and quantity issues essential for water resource management. MWR already take the overall lead in the implementation of the Three Red Lines policy.

However, international experience shows that water security, can and must, be addressed on a river basin basis, through a strong and properly enforced water regulatory system, combined with a strategic water resource plan. The EU Water Framework Directive is one model, but similar models work well in North America and Australia. Large complex river basis can be managed and significant improvements in quality can be made, given a strategic plan, clear river quantity and quality objectives, targeted investment and a fixed timescale. All decisions can be modelled and investment assessed and prioritised to maximum effect.

In overview the key elements for improvement and reform should include

 Establish a clear lead role for water resources (quality and quantity) planning on a full catchment basis  Develop a fully integrated water resource strategy, agreed at highest level allowing integrated water quality and water quantity objectives to be set for all river reaches and water bodies o Set water quantity and quality standards, secure current standards and develop within an ambitious improvement plan o Establish integrated monitoring programmes o Model options, costs and benefits o Consult on options and opportunities  Review permitting process and adopt international best practice. Develop an integrated permitting and enforcement strategy o Ensure permits are understandable and enforceable by regulated and regulators o Ensure permit standards adhere with quality standards set in the strategic plan. o Improvement plans are built into permit conditions o Include a convergence plan to ensure water abstraction and water discharge permits complement each other and can be merged into a single permit in the future  Ensure enforcement of permits

Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013 Task A07-1 China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 123

o Communications plan to ensure permit holders (municipal and industry) comply and expect enforcement o Train regulators in enforcement procedures o Establish an enforcement code and prosecution policy o Communicate to courts and enforcement agencies to ensure consistency  Develop a high profile implementation and change programme o Use programme management techniques o Set up key change projects o Implement according to agreed timeframe o Training plan for key individuals and permitting teams, including enforcement and prosecution policy o Communications plan to internal and external stakeholders o Monitor water resource improvement

The justification, logic and evidence behind these proposals are developed in the subsections below.

7.2 Approach and structure

Throughout the project the water regulatory cycle, exemplified in Diagram 7.2.1, has been used to structure discussion and this report. It was originally developed by IMPEL and has been tested and adapted against the Chinese and EU approaches to water regulation. It has been modified slightly, but the essential principles remain sound and are equally applicable to the Chinese and EU approaches.

The detail and procedures can be adapted to the Chinese situation but the overall approach is universal and should be adopted to test and drive improvement across the water regulatory regime. It is also the core element of water resource planning which if managed in an integrated way can allow prioritisation and optimised investment within an improvement programme.

Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013 Task A07-1 China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 124

Diagram 7.2.1 Water Resources Regulatory Cycle

The regulatory principles suit water quantity and water quality abstraction permitting and should be taken up by MWR and MEP who should assist the provincial governments in the change process and adherence to the policy.

We advocate that MWR becomes the clear lead organisation for implementation and co-ordination of the Three Red Lines Policy. It should would work with MWR and other Ministries and partners to co-ordinate method development and drive the change process towards an agreed end point.

An optimal situation would be a single integrated permit, however we recognise that this could not be achieved easily and may detract from the essential elements of water management. We therefore suggest that the principles are developed as a common platform that could enable progressive integration, leading to ultimate merger of regimes. This would give clarity to the regulated community, bring efficiencies in implementation and could be developed as a modern regulatory initiative, reducing red tape and bringing efficiency. Figure 7.2.2 shows how this could be achieved within the context of and overall strategic plan. The timescale for full integration can be developed and agreed as part of the evaluation process.

Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013 Task A07-1 China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 125

Figure 7.2.2 Proposed Water Resource Planning and Permit Alignment

7.3 Policy Planning

The 2011 No 1 Document outlines the strategic aspiration for increased water security and essential water resource reform across China. The next level of technical strategy and guidance to implement these strategies is needed and work is underway to develop elements of specific guidance. However, for this study we recognise that outcomes need to be defined in specific river basins or at the individual water body level, so that these can be translated into permit standards.

The EU WFD attempts to achieve a strategic water resource planning framework, similar to the No 1 Document, but it also seeks to define overall aspirations for water bodies of ‘good status’. Significant technical and research work has been undertaken in Common Implementation Strategy Guidance and to define good status and the steps and techniques necessary to achieve the outcomes.

China needs to utilise the momentum provided by the No1 Document and to set stretching water resource objectives that will make a significant impact on the deteriorating water resource situation.

Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013 Task A07-1 China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 126

The further development and implementation of the Three Red Lines Policy, in combination with the No1 Document could develop a similar platform to the WFD across China. Setting stringent standards for each of the Red Lines (Quantity, Efficiency and Quality) could drive the necessary improvement in water security. If these are set comprehensively then standards in Abstraction and discharge permits could be modelled and set to ensure 3 Red Line targets are met in rivers and lakes. However we think that this is likely to be a medium term means to drive improvement.

A short term and radical solution, used in some rivers in Europe, particularly in accession countries is to prepare the ground by implementing an interim step of reducing abstraction and discharge by a set amount – using emission control techniques. These are embodied in the EU Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive, and the IPPC regime for large industrial discharges.

The work on the River Elbe, arising in the Czech Republic is a useful example. This was heavily polluted prior to Czech joining the EU. Water quality improvement was initiated starting with a declared policy target to reduce pollution load by 50%. Significant investment was then targeted to improve discharges and begin compliance with the EU Directives. This initial phase of 5-10 years then enabled the more stringent WFD targets to be developed into secondary and tertiary improvement plans. These are now embodied in the WFD River Basin Plan for the Danube.

China could decide to use a combination of measures to achieve water security. These could follow elements of the Modern Regulation initiatives seen in the UK and elsewhere in Europe. A combination of measures and developing a tool-box approach may offer options to suit China. These could include water charging options, supply and demand approaches for water quantity and innovative incentives for water saving.

All approaches will need a clear strategic direction from central government and a strong regulatory background it they are to succeed.

A systematic roll out and a programme management approach is recommended to ensure consistent implementation across the country.

7.4 Set Environmental Objectives

China has set and maintains water resource objectives linked to the National Functional Zone system that has been in use for several years. These objectives tend to be linked to development planning needs and maintain water quality and quantity to facilitate agriculture, industrial use, and development and utilisation zones.

Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013 Task A07-1 China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 127

In addition, China is implementing the system of Three Red Lines Policy. In principle these are a useful progression in water protection, however few details regarding the process and stringency of the standards have been available. Potentially the Three Red Lines could be a powerful tool if the standards set are stretching and progressive. However if they are set too low, and low levels of compliance are allowed, they will not have the impact required.

River, lake and groundwater monitoring is also critical to understand the variability and mechanisms impacting water quality in the environment. This information is needed to set the standards and to monitor and report compliance. Monitoring programmes need to be extended and targeted on a risk basis (see WFD risk assessment and risk based monitoring).

Thought should be given to setting standards that drive progressive improvement over a reasonable period – say 5 years. In the first instance they could be set to allow compliance with minimum standard, but a tighter standard could be given in the future. Initially these could be flow and chemical related standards (possibly set as red lines), these can be progressively tightened until ‘river need’s standards are brought into effect. Ultimately, biological standards could be set, but this would be a longer term proposal. Table 7.4.1 outlines a possible progression.

Table 7.4.1 Possible progressive tightening of River Objectives and Standards

Year 1 Year 5 Year 10 Year 15 Consolidate existing Maintain or increase Move to ‘River Needs’ Instigate and implement quality and flow environmental flow; standards based on biological standards standards and Reduce pollution by flow and chemistry equivalent to EUWFD increase monitoring 50%

This can be expressed graphically as in Figure 7.4.1

Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013 Task A07-1 China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 128

Figure 7.4.1 Progressively Improve Water Objectives for Quantity and Quality

National databases, or at least national access to data, should be set up to allow central appraisal, compliance assessment and reporting to take place. It should be noted that objectives are usually set a statistic, normally a 95%ile. This allows for variability in the environment and monitoring errors. Obviously with more information, certainty increases.

A national state of the aquatic environment report, similar to that produced in the EU would be useful to communicate progress and inform debate. This can take the form of ‘colours on maps’; a well tried EU method.

Options and costs for future improvement can be modelled and discussions can take place on priorities for action. Once the objectives in the environment are set, permit conditions can be modelled and improvement plans incorporated into permits.

The setting of objectives in the environment is a key issue and could be the subject of a study itself and the detail is beyond the scope and time available to this project. However its importance and as central to a water strategy cannot be overestimated.

7.5 Permit Legislation

We have reviewed the water resource permit legislation. In general, this is adequate to undertake the majority of steps required to implement permit reform in the short to medium term. This will need checking to ensure that it enables the achievement of outcomes as the reform takes place.

Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013 Task A07-1 China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 129

The key issue now and in the medium term, is the inconsistent application of the law and the guidance and implementation that lies beneath it. For example, there is provision in the law to set permits, an application process and legal permits are issued for water drawing and water quality. However, the detailed content of the permits is not strong and the permit conditions are not always linked to objectives set in the river. This coupled with a lack of monitoring and enforcement makes the system less effective than it needs to be.

Detailed guidance on the format of permits, how to set permit conditions, monitor and enforce compliance is critical to bring about reform. This needs to be linked with a change programme and education and training for those engaged in the permit regulatory process.

Changing primary legislation is not easy and we suggest that this is unnecessary at the moment. However, as the reforms are implemented and brought into force, the legal basis and laws should be tested against the new requirements and changes considered if necessary.

7.6 Set Permit

This is a key area for review and reform. An application process and administrative arrangements for issuing permits are in place. Charging systems are also in use and have been under review recently. Generally, permits are in place for abstractions and discharges and examples are given in Section 5. However, there is little evidence that permits are fit for purpose or are protective of water resources. In addition, the wording of the permits does not allow effective compliance assessment or enforcement actions to be undertaken.

Permits are issued by Provincial water resources offices, either by MWR for abstraction or MEP for discharge. Co-ordination between Ministries should be improved to reduce the significant duplication of effort, bureaucracy and cost. Alignment of permitting structures and administration, leading to a single integrated permit is recommended.

The linkages between the standards in permits and the environmental standards are not always clear or protective. This is a clear area for reform and progressive improvement, linked to the standards set in the receiving environment. Standards need to be set following environmental assessment and modelling exercises, and should facilitate implementation of the water strategy. Monitoring and assessment of compliance against these permit standards must be improved.

A consolidation and improvement plan for permits should mirror the review and improvement of river objectives and standards. Permits must be consolidated and tightened to achieve these primary river objectives in a phased manner. Monitoring and modelling of the water environment and the discharge performance will enable effective targeting of improvement and clear cases for improvement to be calculated. Table 7.5.1 provides a possible sequence.

Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013 Task A07-1 China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 130

Table 7.5.1 Sequential tightening of permits

Year 1 Year 5 Year 10 Year 15+ Consolidate permits Tighten Permit Further tighten permit Progressive and and ensure legal conditions to reduce conditions to allow incremental tightening to compliance with pollution emissions attainment of ‘River facilitate biological existing standards by 50%. Reduce Needs’ standards standards equivalent to water abstraction and based on flow and EUWFD in the river increase water chemistry efficiency

Figure 7.5.1 shows the progressive tightening of permit conditions. This can be done for quantity and quality, but tightening quality standards is generally more achievable.

Figure 7.5.1 Progressively tighten permit standards to meet objectives and standards

This approach allows an improvement plan to be implemented, similar to the EU WFD ‘Programme of Measures’. The five year timescale is pragmatic and allows industry to plan and adapt at a pace in tune with their financial planning cycles, or, in terms of China the 5 year Economic Plans. The timescale could be accelerated if the political will was there and progress. In Europe such improvement has generally been linked to phases of economic investment and consolidation and when infrastructure is being improved and replaced.

Permits must clearly set out the requirements for process quality assurance, monitoring, and other key requirements needed to assure the safe operation of the permit, within the legal requirement. It should be clear to the operator and the inspector exactly what is required and why.

Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013 Task A07-1 China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 131

A review should be undertaken to assess the quality of current permits and to estimate the size of the review task and to assess any issues that might arise in the review process. In addition, priorities could be set for review to ensure that the most damaging permits are revised first. This might be done through an initial pilot catchment exercise.

Figure 7.5.3 puts the two elements together and demonstrates that progressive tightening of permit standards can allow quality objectives to be met. All elements are modelled and permit standards are calculated to meet the agreed improvement programmes and the progressive improvement of environmental objectives and standards.

Figure 7.5.3 Interaction between permit standards and attaining quality objectives and standards

Many of the key ideas and examples of good practice may be obtained from the review of EU permits in previous chapters. Elements may be directly transferrable, but other issues will need adaptation or innovation to suit the Chinese situation.

An early view of a strategy to achieve this would help in work planning and competence building. With a clear understanding of a future path, some of the work to undertake this could be done in parallel so that the planning and the skills needed are developed in advance.

7.7 Inspection and Monitoring of Permits

National guidance for monitoring permit compliance and the operation or regulated installations should be developed. This would allow a move towards consistent application and enforcement of permits and increased protection of water resources.

Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013 Task A07-1 China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 132

Examples of national guidance on EU inspection and monitoring are given in section 4.9. These may assist in developing a similar regime for China.

Permits must facilitate clear understanding and assessment of compliance, by the regulator and the operator.

The guidance should embody a number of principles set at policy level and might include:

1. Inspection frequency related to the risks that the installation poses and the vulnerability of the receiving environment. Initially size and complexity of installation may allow sector norms on monitoring frequency to be developed. These could be changed progressively to true risk assessments, based on performance and compliance history 2. Permits should encourage water use efficiency and waste minimisation. Methods of assessing this need to be embodied in the permits 3. Monitoring and inspection must be targeted to the parameters of maximum significance and analytical and quality assurance methods need to be consistent 4. Operators must be encouraged to assume responsibility for their installation. This should not be offset to the regulator. 5. Self-monitoring and reporting arrangements, with independent audit, could be put in place, provided the operator has sufficient capability 6. Operator record keeping on plant performance and onward transmission of data to the regulator at prearranged frequency 7. Inspection and monitoring could be reduced once a strong track record of compliance and capability has been established. A version of the UK Environment Agency's (EA) Operator Monitoring Assessment (OMA) could be adopted The system might be introduced for some sectors 8. Safe access at all times for regulators to key monitoring points and agreed parts of the installation. 9. Competency training and awareness for operators and regulators

7.8 Assess Compliance

Compliance assessment is closely linked to the inspection and monitoring above. This focusses on the numeric assessment and reporting of performance.

Depending on the monitoring regime, this may be undertaken by the regulator, or if a self-monitoring regime is in place this may be undertaken by the operator and reported to the regulator. The regulator may then audit performance on a risk basis. In either method, open and frequent flow of information is critical, especially if the monitoring information is essential for the operation of the installation and the protection of the water resource.

Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013 Task A07-1 China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 133

Environmentally protective standards in the permit, with a statistic, are essential for clear and correct assessment. Once these are determined by the regulator the monitoring information and compliance algorithm can be agreed and shared with the operator. Performance information can be made available for operation of the plant or for assessment of impact on water resources.

Performance information can be used by the regulator to assess national compliance and to feed into future policy making and sector strategy. It can be input into predicative models and will influence water resource strategy and national priorities.

Most EU MS now utilise electronic mechanisms for updating the regulator with self-monitored information. An example is given in section 4.9. This allows data to be provided in a form that can be automatically assessed for compliance by the regulator and placed on the public registers.

Also consideration should be made to making this compliance information available to stakeholders and possibly the public. In Europe, a number of companies now place performance information on pubic web sites, or even update notice boards outside the plant and in local media.

In some cases real time information is made available on the web, sometimes associated with web-cam information on the production line and the receiving environment. This can considerably increase public awareness and affinity with the local industries, often placed at the centre of communities.

An effective data transmission, compliance assessment and open access to information allows transparency and accountability from all standpoints. It increases confidence in the regulator and the regulated and increases the protection of water resources.

7.9 Enforcement Options

Little time was available for this and the team did not have the legal skills to assess the enforcement options currently available in China. More work is needed to assess this and compare best practice in the EU with current practice in China. This would require a water law expert, with experience of enforcement and sanctions in China to work alongside the team.

The following notes may assist in scoping this future exercise.

 Undertake a comprehensive review and comparison of best practice options in enforcement and sanctions

Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013 Task A07-1 China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 134

 Review enforcement options available in China  Explore Criminal vs civil sanctions – the UK Macrory Review would be useful in this  Enforcement policy – see UK and Danish examples o Clear statement of intent and consequences . Fines . Imprisonment . Size of fines and length of prison terms – set out in UK legislation o Proportionate enforcement o Tool box approach o Criminal and civil sanctions  Court and prosecution o Environmental court – specialist courts in some EU countries  Civil damages and insurance options  Ensure that enforcement drives behaviour and protects water resources  Examine Modern Regulatory Approaches – Environment Agency Documents

7.10 Communication

Effective communication on performance against permit conditions, water resource condition, water saving and the state of the environment is essential to build trust and dialogue on options between the operator, the regulator and the key stakeholders.

Methods of communication have improved considerably in recent years. Lessons and techniques have been learned from public relations initiatives and from the media and advertising. In the water and environmental field significant progress has been made with the introduction of the Public Access to Environmental Information Directive and the Stakeholder information requirements of the EUWFD.

Good examples of EU communication of water information are provided in section 4.13. Some may be useful to China and widening access is recommended. However China must decide on best practice and speed of change, taking into account the best interests of China.

If public access is not considered a viable option at present, increased dialogue and information exchange between regulators and regulated can improve performance and understanding significantly. Also improved information flow between Government Ministries and Provinces would improve decision making and consistency of regulation across and within river basins. A staged improvement in communications and information exchange as part of a communications strategy may be useful

7.11 Change Programme

Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013 Task A07-1 China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 135

A significant and wide ranging water resource change programme is recommended. This should review the full permit cycle adopted here and set up a number of review and reform projects. It should promote a national water resource strategy and include the work being undertaken to implement the No1 Water Document. It should consider the future water security needs of an emerging and fast growing China. It must encompass the key issues of sustainability in water resource management and optimisation.

On the specifics of permitting this should include a national permit review group to undertake this task and to specify and write the guidance necessary to reform the permits. The terms of reference need to be considered carefully but they might include:

1. Assess quality wording and of current permits to ensure a. That the permit is providing the correct level of protection to the water resource and certainty to the permit holder. b. Understandability by permit holder c. Understandability and enforceability by inspector d. Enforceability by the court/judicial system 2. Assess the standards included in the current permits to ensure that a. Standards are clear and can be enforced b. Standards are protective and meet the environmental objectives in force now c. Standards are linked to water resource models, or to Best Available Technology (BAT), according to policy and industrial sector guidance d. Standards can be progressively tightened to meet current and future water resources objectives, including time limited changes and improvement targets e. The standards contain the necessary statistical definition to allow fair compliance assessment and adequate water resource protection (e.g. 95%ile, mean, median etc) 3. Ensure that monitoring and reporting policy is embedded into the permits a. Monitoring standards, quality assurance, analytical methods and other criteria are clear and enforceable b. That self-monitoring requirements, or external regulator monitoring of abstraction or discharge quality is in place c. That performance reporting criteria and methods are clear and in place 4. That the permit application process is clear and efficient and administrative arrangements are optimised a. Electronic application process are in place and are efficient and user friendly b. Timescales for administering and granting permits are clear and achievable c. Adequate communications and data flow is in place for the efficient and integrated issuing of permits, for both quantity and quality water resource elements d. Where are the gaps and opportunities for improvement

Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013 Task A07-1 China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 136

e. Who has the final say if there is conflict? Is there an adequate appeals mechanism 5. There is a clear database for all permits linked to GIS a. All permits should be available to regulators b. Compliance assessment can be automated and national permit achievement statistics are comparable and easily obtainable c. Abstraction, discharge and water objectives can be linked and assessed d. Assess the opportunities for making this transparent and pubic to stakeholders e. Assess the case for public registers of all permits 6. What are the skills and competencies for staff dealing with these aspects of permitting? a. What is current situation b. What training is required c. How would training programme be rolled out d. Internal and staff communication issues 7. Communication strategy a. Internal and MWR Directors, and institutes b. Other Key Ministries and research institutes and organisations c. Provinces, YRCC and CWRC and others d. Other key external stakeholders, industry, municipalities e. Consider using Modern Regulation as catalyst for this and to show the benefits of reforming the approach and how permits and compliance bring advantages to all 8. Scope a programme for review and improvement a. Timescale b. Phasing c. Costs d. Benefits e. Dependencies f. Risks 9. Develop a fully costed business case for the work 10. A second stage of co-operation in the form of a pilot study on water resource planning and permitting between China and the EU is recommended to speed up reform and reduce implementation risks. This should include developing ‘top to bottom’ worked examples utilising the permitting and regulatory model developed. This could take the form of pilot studies on real water bodies (surface and groundwater) and placing water resources experts together to exchange views and develop innovative methods to suit China.

Finally, China has a great opportunity to undertake this reform. It was signalled in the No. 1 Policy Document in 2011. Many of the basic building blocks are in place, but significant change is required to ensure water security and the sustainable long-term protection of water resources. The computer power, modelling facilities, hydrology and engineering skills are all

Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013 Task A07-1 China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 137 available and these changes can be achieved if the vision and need is communicated well to those who can drive the changes forward.

Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013 Task A07-1 China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 138

8 Glossary of Terms

Aquifer is a porous rock structure within which water travels and is stored. Aquifers may be shallow, a few metres in depth, or very deep being several hundred metres in depth. Coastal water is that area of surface water on the landward side of a line, every point of which is at a distance of one nautical mile on the seaward side from the nearest point of the baseline from which the breadth of territorial waters is measured, extending where appropriate up to the outer limit of transitional waters. Determinands means constituents or properties of the water which can be determined, or estimated, by direct or indirect measurement, in situ or in a sample. Ecological status is an expression of the structure and functioning of aquatic ecosystems associated with surface waters. Such waters are classified as being of good ecological status when they meet the requirements of the Water Framework Directive Emission limit value means the amount of a substance, usually expressed as a concentration and/or a level, which may not be exceeded during any one or more periods of time. Emission controls are controls which are placed on emissions (point sources) requiring a specified emission limit value. Environmental objectives: Means the objectives set out in Article 4 of the Water Framework Directive. Objectives include the protection of water bodies, attainment of Good Status and other environmental requirements of the Directive. Environmental quality standard: Means the concentration of a particular pollutant or group of pollutants in water, sediment or biota which should not be exceeded in order to protect human health and the environment. European Union (EU) The European Union of is an economic and political union or confederation of 27 Member States which are located primarily in Europe. Groundwater is all water which is below the surface of the ground in the saturation zone and in direct contact with the ground or subsoil. The saturation zone is commonly referred to as an aquifer which is a subsurface layer or layers of rock or other geological strata of sufficient porosity and permeability to allow a significant flow of groundwater or the abstraction of significant quantities of groundwater. IMPEL: The European Union Network for the Implementation and Enforcement of Environmental Law (IMPEL) is a network of the environmental authorities of EU Member States, acceding and candidate countries, and Norway. It provides a framework for policy

Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013 Task A07-1 China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 139 makers, environmental inspectors and enforcement officers to exchange ideas, and encourages the development of enforcement structures and best practices. Inland water is all standing or flowing water on the surface of the land (such as reservoirs, lakes, rivers and canals) and all groundwater on the landward side of the baseline from which the breadth of territorial waters is measured. Lake is a body of water, which may be man-made or natural, occurring on the land surface. Member States: Are the individual countries that belong to the European Union and are bound by the Water Framework Directive. Other sovereign nations may choose to adhere to the Directive in order to co-operate with the EU, but are not bound by the legislation. Some comparison may be made with the Provincial Level within China. Outcomes: These are the overall environmental, economic or social conditions required by European society, within a river basin. They will include: good quality water environment; water suitable for potable abstraction and use; fisheries; recreational use etc. These will also lead to healthy environments for people, sustainable economic use, (e.g. tourism) and healthy ecosystems. Permitting: Establishing legal and verifiable controls on an activity that has the potential to pollute. Point sources (of pollution) are primarily discharges from municipal wastewater treatment plants associated with population centres or effluent discharges from industry. Polluter pays principle is enshrined within the Water Framework Directive requiring that the polluter of the water environment should pay, provided this is established through fair pricing policies. Pollution is the introduction of substances or energy into the environment, resulting in deleterious effects of such a nature as to endanger human health, harm living resources and ecosystems, and impair or interfere with amenities and other legitimate uses of the environment. (See also Water Framework Directive and Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control Directive definitions and discussion in Chapter 8.) Programme of measures defines in detail those actions which are required to achieve the environmental objectives of the Directive within a river basin district. Regulated: controlled through application of the law, whether directly (e.g. prohibition) or by having and complying with a permit or authorisation issued by a regulator. Regulation: the application of a legal constraint on an activity to ensure a defined objective (e.g. protecting water quality) is attained. Regulation may use a wide range of instruments, according to risk (from prohibition to advice). Water quality regulation typically involves at least one of environmental quality standards, permits or authorisations, exemptions or generally binding rules. River is a body of inland water flowing for the most part on the surface of the land but which may flow underground for part of its course. Upland rivers are generally fast flowing and lowland rivers are generally slow flowing and meandering. River Basins: Sometimes known as a river catchment, a “river basin” is the area of land from which all surface run-off flows through a sequence of streams, rivers and sometimes lakes into the sea at a single river mouth, estuary or delta. River basin district is a river catchment or a group of catchments.

Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013 Task A07-1 China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 140

River basin management plan is a detailed document describing the characteristics of the basin, the environmental objectives that need to be achieved and the pollution control measures required to achieve these objectives through a specified work programme. Surface water means inland waters, except groundwater, which are on the land surface(such as reservoirs, lakes, rivers, transitional waters, coastal waters and, under some circumstances, territorial waters) which occur within a river basin. Water body: is a discrete and significant element of surface water such as a river, lake or reservoir, or a distinct volume of groundwater within an aquifer. It is the basic building block of the river basin planning process. It delineates the sub-unit to which the environmental objectives should apply. The size of water bodies is determined by the optimum management unit and the variability of the water affected. Water Resources: means the combination of water quality and water quantity, either or both of which can be limiting in a given situation. Water security: The capacity of a population to ensure that they continue to have access to potable water and irrigation and industrial uses of water at an acceptable level of risk of disruption due to e.g. floods, drought, pollution. Water strategy: An analysis of water issues and their administrative, and/or institutional and/or technical options for resolution, leading to implementation plans for resolution of those issues within a defined timescale and suite of resources. Water Table: The top of the saturated zone within an aquifer.

Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013 Task A07-1 China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 141

Annex 1 – EU Permit Examples

Because of their size and complexity, these will be made available in electronic form, on a CD attached to the hard copy report or associated with the E-version of this report, via the China Europe Water Platform Knowledge Centre

Permits on abstraction and discharge of water from UK

Permits on abstraction and discharge of water from Denmark

Permits on abstraction and discharge of water from China

Permits on abstraction and discharge of water from Germany

Permits on abstraction and discharge of water from France

Permits on abstraction and discharge of water from Holland

Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013 Task A07-1 China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 142

Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013 Task A07-1 China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 143

Annex 2 – Key Document Library and References

Because of their size and complexity, these documents will be made available in electronic form, on a CD attached to the hard copy report or associated with the E-version of this report, via the China Europe Water Platform Knowledge Centre.

The document directory is as follows:

Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013