Scottish Executive Stakeholder Forum: April
2004
Economics and Characterisation - How it will
all fit together
Characterisation
At the last Forum meeting, SEPA staff gained the
impression that the preliminary number of "at risk"
designations felt high. The "at risk" water bodies have
consequently been reassessed with a view to reducing their
number. This has resulted in a cut in their number, though
not by a large margin. It has not been possible to go
further without contravening the agreed UK guidance, which
in turn is based on the Directive's requirements. Contact
with other countries has revealed that England and many
continental Member States are provisionally finding that a
substantially higher proportion of their waters are "at
risk" than is the case in Scotland.
The average size of Scottish WB is also well within the
range being used in other countries, and the original
baseline water body boundaries have stood up well to the
continuing scrutiny. Relatively few have had to be split,
and even fewer merged. Their total number has crept up to
3345. The Directive covers all waters, and a record is
being kept of "small waters" justifying particular
attention.
A consultation version of the Article 5 report has been
drafted, and a few summary tables taken from this draft
will be included in the presentation. The consultation
draft includes a full set of these tables, and links to
detailed maps showing risk status in respect of particular
pressures.
At the Article 5 reporting level, there is relatively
little connection between the pressures & impacts and
economic assessments. Both are technical analyses which
will provide the basis for future cost/benefit analyses.
The Directive provides ample scope for current usage and
"disproportionate costs" to be take into account when
determining if a water body is "heavily modified", or if it
is not appropriate to seek to attain good status by 2015.
These assignments will be an important part of the 2009
River Basin Management Plans. These plans will be
developed on the basis of the facts and information
currently being collected - characterisation will not stop
with the 2004 report, but must continue to be developed,
including the required production in 2007 of "an interim
overview of water management issues".
It is also the case that "at risk" designation does not
necessarily imply that a WB is not currently of "good
status", as this latter has yet to be internationally
defined at a technical level. However, reasonably close
linkage is expected. International intercalibration of
provisional national good status boundaries is underway,
and is due to be completed by the end of 2006.
For the Article 5 report, preliminary indication of
possible Heavily Modified Water Body (HMWB) designation
will be given, and so far over two-thirds of lakes "at
risk" from hydrological of morphological pressures have
been provisionally identified as HMWB (or as artificial
WB). These currently often unregulated pressures are
numerically the main cause of "risk" to the good ecological
status of lakes. HMWB may still have a target to attain
"good ecological potential", but this status is yet to be
described should take into account current economically
valuable usage.