The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

CHAPTER 5: PRIORITIES FOR THE WATER ENVIRONMENT

5.1 One of the key objectives for this research was to identify priorities for the WFD and the water environment. This chapter discusses the findings from this aspect of the research.

Stakeholder views

5.2 The main priorities for the stakeholders were related to what they felt were the main threats to the water environment: firstly, reducing diffuse pollution.

If you reduced the impact of diffuse pollution, you'd make an enormous improvement.
(Stakeholder 4)

Some of the big challenges are in this whole area of diffuse pollution, that is one of the priority areas now …finding a way of reducing that that doesn't impose enormous costs and put land managers at a major competitive disadvantage.
(Stakeholder 7)

5.3 Additionally, mention was made by one stakeholder of restoring the water environment to how it was in the past, both in terms of restoring wetlands and marshes and undoing past modifications. However, the majority view was that this would be too difficult and not worth the effort or cost. Instead, focus should be on maintaining what we have.

There has to be good economic reasons for doing it [restoring water environment to how it was before modifications]…we live with what we've got…these are highly modified water courses which we can't do much about.
(Stakeholder 6)

Things that were built 50-60 years ago have had an impact, the environment has adapted to it, it's different to what it was but isn't necessarily bad. It's just different.
(Stakeholder 8)

5.4 In terms of specific areas that should be prioritised, the stakeholders felt that the worst areas, mainly urban areas and heavily farmed areas should be a priority.

I would probably have to say where the population is…there's an awful lot of river basins flow into urban areas so obviously that's natural wastage occurring which is a lot more difficult to control.
(Stakeholder 9)

Identify the areas where you know are at risk, concentrate on that…the priority areas are obviously where there is heavy industry.
(Stakeholder 6)

5.5 Stakeholders were also asked where they thought the main clashes of priorities would lie. A range of views were put forward:

I think the biggest challenge is going to be balancing the drive for environmental improvement against the actual cost of doing it, and whether the costs are the right costs, whether the objectives that have been set are the right objectives, and resisting the temptation to try and get everything sorted by 2015, not taking account of the fact that there are multiple cycles and it doesn't all have to be done and you can do it, you know, there's flexibility in the objectives as well, that you can set longer term or lesser objectives.
(Stakeholder 3)

I think it will lie between industry and agriculture. I think they're the two industries that will bear the most cost.
(Stakeholder 10)

It may be between development aspirations and measures which are being guided by the catchment plans which are against the development aspirations.
(Stakeholder 9)

5.6 No clear hierarchy of prioritising economic, social or environmental considerations emerged. Many said that they would find it impossible to simplify things down to the most important and least important.

Public views

5.7 A scenarios exercise was used in the focus groups to try to establish the public's priorities for the WFD. Five scenarios were created which highlighted various situations where there was a clash of priorities. These are briefly described below and the full versions are in Appendix two.

• The first scenario described a situation where 20 newly built houses were threatened by flooding. Residents were campaigning for flood defences to be put in place but this would alter the flow of the river and threaten a rare bird habitat.
• The second was about farmers polluting a nearby river. They were being asked to reduce use of fertilisers and stop their cattle going into the river. This would affect their profits.
• The third described a development of holiday chalets - although we also asked about affordable housing - that would mean a dam had to be put in the nearby river which would affect salmon stocks.
• Scenario four was about a hydroelectric power station that would damage a river and spoil the scenery.
• Finally, in the fifth scenario, a whisky distillery wanted to expand, this would create new jobs but damage the river and affect trout stocks - which would have an impact on the local trout fishing and related jobs.

5.8 Three scenarios were assigned to each group, ensuring that a range of different groups discussed each scenario. Given local concern of overdevelopment, this scenario was asked in the Aviemore groups. Likewise, farm pollution is an issue in the area surrounding Scotlandwell so this scenario was asked of that group. However, if time allowed, more than three scenarios were used. The scenarios used in each group are shown in the table below.

Table 2: Scenarios used in each group

5.9 These scenarios were followed by discussion of what should happen in each case and why. Initially, it was hoped that this exercise would lead to a clear hierarchy of priorities. However, while some priorities did emerge through the course of the discussion, they were not consistent. For example, some people always placed the environment first; while others prioritised employment, domestic water supply, the need for electricity, cheap food and the need for affordable housing over the environment.

At the end of the day saving the environment should always win.
(Aviemore, under 40, C2DE)

It's only 20 houses compared to a rare species of bird. You have to protect the birds and the plants and the animals.
(Aviemore, under 40, C2DE)

You'll not have any industry if you've got no power, no way of working or producing the power stations. So it's very much chicken and egg.
(Glasgow, under 40, C2DE)

It'll be a catch 22, because in the long run we want cheaper food, yeah we want them [farmers] to stop using pesticides but we go to the shops and buy the cheaper option.
(Glasgow, under 40, C2DE)

5.10 That said, people's decisions were very dependent on the specific circumstances of the situation or scenario they were being asked to engage in. For example, people were more likely to support flood defences when a larger number of houses were going to be flooded, or if the houses had been there for many years and were not newly built. Likewise, damaging the environment for industry was more likely to be tolerated if jobs were created and there was a positive impact on the local economy.

If it's going to benefit thousands [of families] then it [flood defences] should go ahead. But if it's only benefiting three families or five families then it should be considered seriously.
(Glasgow, under 40, C2DE)

I think there's a better argument, what I would do is build flood defences for the houses that have been there for over fifty years and leave the other ones [those that were newly built].
(Glasgow, over 40, ABC1)

5.11 There was usually a considerable degree of questioning about the assumptions and impact of the scenarios. For example, people questioned the amount of jobs that would be created and lost in the fifth scenario - indicating that they wanted to be sure of the situation before making a decision. In scenario 1, if was felt that the impact would not be as great as described because " birds aren't stupid" and would find somewhere else to live. The impact of scenario 2 was also questioned: even if cattle stop drinking from river, someone suggested that wild animals will still be doing so further upstream leading to the same effect overall.

5.12 Instead of ranking of social, economic and environmental considerations, participants preferred to look for alternative outcomes for each of the scenarios. For example:

Provide them with alternatives to pesticides. (Scenario 2)
(North Berwick, under 40, ABC1)

We should think of re-housing them all…we don't just abandon them and say well tough luck. (Scenario 1)
(Aviemore, over 40, ABC1 )

5.13 There was also an emphasis placed on compromising and mitigating the effects. For example:

There must be some way you could divert the water so that it was still away from the houses and is still not affecting the birds. (Scenario 1)
(Aviemore, under 40, C2DE)

They're wanting farmers to do these things but they're not willing to back them financially. If they would offer them a financial incentive for the money they were going to lose that would be fair enough. (Scenario 2)
(Aviemore, under 40, C2DE)

I cannot believe that that couldn't be worked out and there couldn't be a compromise to provide more water. (Scenario 5)
(Glasgow, over 40, ABC1)

What's wrong with windfarms…that would do the same thing without spoiling [the river]. (Scenario 4)
(Aviemore, under 40, C2DE)

5.14 These stages of decision-making - questioning, exploring options, seeking compromise and mitigating effects - can be likened to the way in which informed advisory groups currently decide upon priorities. The public appear to have taken their decision-making seriously and carefully weighed up and questioned the different options. This suggests that a similar degree of conscientiousness and interest might be displayed by the public if asked to be involved in the WFD implementation.

5.15 As well as this scenarios exercise, participants were also asked specifically to identify their priorities for the water environment. Again, this did not result in a hierarchy of priorities. However, two main themes emerged: prioritise drinking water supply and make efforts to bring the worst areas up to standard.

It would be difficult not to put the contingence of the water supply right at the top of the list…since we can't live without it.
(North Berwick, over 40, C2DE)

I think the urban areas personally [should be improved]. I know there's not as much industry from pollution but they're far higher populated.
(Glasgow, under 40, C2DE)

« Previous | Contents | Next »