« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Background
1 The Water Framework Directive ( WFD) was passed by the European Union in 2000 and is being implemented in Scotland through the Water Environment and Water Services (Scotland) Act 2003. A key aspect of the WFD is effective public participation and consultation.
2 The Scottish Executive commissioned Ipsos MORI to undertake qualitative research to gather and explore the opinions and priorities of the Scottish public in regard to the quality of the water environment, and to explore how the public might be effectively engaged in issues about the water environment 1.
3 The research consisted of seven focus groups with members of the general public. To inform these focus groups, ten in-depth, one-to-one interviews were undertaken with stakeholders (representatives from industry, environmental, farming and community interest groups), who were approached as informed members of the public rather than as representatives of a particular organisation.
Main Findings
Water quality and water quantity
4 The focus group participants echoed the views of most of the stakeholders interviewed in that they thought that Scotland has good water quality - the water to drink in Scotland was thought to be superior to that of other countries and many participants mentioned the quality of lochs, rivers and the coast. The quantity of water in Scotland was also generally thought to be good by both the public and stakeholders. However, some members of the public did refer to pollution, particularly the water environment in urban areas, and the stakeholders also pointed to areas which have a problem with water supply.
5 The main issue for the public was that drinking water should be of consistently good quality. There were concerns about the degree to which the water supply was "tampered with", for example, through the addition of chlorine and fluoride.
Threats to the water environment
6 For the stakeholders, the biggest threat to Scotland's water environment was thought to be pollution, mainly diffuse pollution from farming. Other concerns included abstraction and point source pollution.
7 The public also felt that pollution was a threat to the water environment, although they rarely mentioned diffuse pollution. Instead, their focus was on point source pollutants such as rubbish. Another concern for the public was over-development, both in terms of the strain on water supply and increased sewage output.
Priorities
8 Priorities for the water environment tended to mirror what people thought were the main threats. Stakeholders highlighted the need to reduce diffuse pollution and many felt that the worst areas (urban and heavily farmed) should be prioritised. When the public were directly asked for their priorities, two themes emerged: maintaining the drinking water supply and, again, efforts to bring the worst areas up to standard. No clear hierarchy expressing any prioritisation of economic, social or environmental considerations emerged.
WFD: communication, implementation, education and engagement
9 Stakeholders were positive regarding the communication and consultation on the WFD they had received from the Scottish Executive and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency ( SEPA). However, their views on implementation plans were more mixed: most were positive and particularly welcomed the holistic management of whole river basins and the fact that broad environmental criteria would be taken into account; others felt that, as most of Scotland's water environment is very good, the WFD implementation is unnecessary.
10 In the focus groups, the public were given a brief description of the WFD and asked for their reaction. They were generally positive as they felt the state of the water environment is important and the WFD should help improve or maintain standards. However, a number of concerns were evident:
- some of the concepts used by the WFD, such as "good ecological status", were thought to be vague.
- there were concerns about the costs of implementation.
- although they felt that the WFD sounded good in principle, there were doubts over how effectively it would be implemented.
- local knowledge of the water environment and local issues were thought to be more important than decisions made in Edinburgh or Brussels.
- there was scepticism over whether other countries would adhere to the legislation to the same extent as Scotland and the rest of the UK.
11 A scenarios exercise was used in the focus groups to try to establish the public's priorities for the WFD. While some priorities emerged as a result of this exercise, they were not consistent. Many placed the environment first, while some prioritised other areas (such as employment or domestic water supply) depending on the specifics of the scenario.
12 In discussing the scenarios, what did emerge were priorities for the decision-making process - questioning and clarifying, exploring the possible options, seeking compromise, solutions and exploring ways to mitigate effects on disadvantaged parties (such as compensation for farmers). This can be likened to the way in which informed advisory groups decide upon priorities and has positive implications for engaging the public in WFD implementation.
13 When asked for their expectations of how the public could be engaged with the WFD, stakeholders anticipated a number of potential challenges:
- a lack of interest among the public;
- the absence of specific plans;
- the scale of current area advisory groups, which were thought to be too large, which might hinder engagement at a meaningful, local level;
- potentially off-putting terminology and a perceived lack of knowledge on the part of the public; and
- how to ensure representative involvement.
14 Many of these points were borne out by the focus group work - both in terms of what the people said in the discussions and our experience of the process of trying to engage people on the issues. Nonetheless, it is worth noting that the members of the public were all able and willing to talk about the water environment for over an hour in the focus group discussions. This indicates that careful planning and consideration of how the public can be involved in WFD implementation could lead to successful consultation. Important issues regarding public involvement that have emerged during this research are:
- there is potential to build on the importance and pride felt about the quality of Scotland's water. Evidence from the focus groups suggests that the public may well be receptive to messages about maintaining our high standards and protecting one of Scotland's key assets.
- there is a need to educate the public (perhaps through awareness raising campaigns) on what constitutes the broader water environment and what, in addition to pollution, can damage it.
- it may be more effective to engage people at the outset by tapping into the existing interest and concern about the environment in general - rather than specifically mentioning the 'water environment'.
- the public should be involved at an appropriate stage - when there are specific, tangible issues to be discussed rather than more abstract principles.
Finally, and most importantly,
- engaging people at a local level, so that they have an interest in the issues and they can see the actual impact of any improvements, would be most meaningful.
Conclusion
15 Overall, this research indicates that both the public and the stakeholders consider Scotland to have good water quality and water quantity. That said, both groups identified current and potential threats to Scotland's water environment and their priorities for the future were mostly based on these concerns.
16 One of the aims of the research was to explore whether and how the public could be engaged in the ongoing implementation of WFD. The focus group participants were clearly engaged, interested and happy to discuss the issues for at least an hour and a half - suggesting that it is possible to generate public involvement.
17 However, there are issues that must be considered if public engagement in the WFD is to be successful and take account of local social and economic issues. In particular, meaningful engagement would be at a local level, at an appropriate stage, i.e. when there are specific tangible issues to be discussed rather than more abstract principles, and should be representative of the whole community.
« Previous | Contents | Next »