Harriet Orr

of 15 /15
WFD and Upland management: a regulatory perspective Harriet Orr Research Expert, Climate Change, Evidence Directorate 9 th May 2012 Input from: Robert Brotherton, Zoe Frogbrook, Stacey Roe, Kate Gamble, Simon Hildon

Embed Size (px)

description

 

Transcript of Harriet Orr

  • 1. WFD and Upland management:a regulatory perspectiveHarriet OrrResearch Expert, Climate Change, Evidence Directorate9th May 2012Input from: Robert Brotherton, Zoe Frogbrook, Stacey Roe, Kate Gamble, Simon Hildon
  • 2. Introduction Good Ecological Status: reasons for failure Pressures, impacts and measures How were addressing issues and evidence gaps
  • 3. Reasons for Failure
  • 4. Water BodyFailures due toagriculture and landmanagementNorthern England
  • 5. Wales Reasons For WFD Failures - Wales 19% Unknown (investigation to be completed) 3% 1% Agricultural pollution 1% Artificial barriers to fish migration 2% Abandoned mines and contaminated land2% 16% Forestry 3% Acidification4% Sewage discharges Impoundments7% Flood protection & land drainage Urban & transport development 11% Surface water abstraction 7% Natural conditions Industrial discharges 7% 10% Septic tanks 7% Other
  • 6. Reasons for Failure Wales Agricultural Pollution 132 of Wales water bodies (16% of failures) fail Good Status because of pollution from agricultural activities Abandoned mines & contaminated land 84 of Wales water bodies (10% of failures) fail Good Status because of diffuse and point source pollution from abandoned mines and contaminated land
  • 7. Reasons for Failure Forestry 60 of Wales water bodies (7% of failures) fail Good Status because of forestry activities This may drop to around 20 with further investigations Map of surface water failures for forestry
  • 8. Reasons for Failure Wales Acidification in Wales 59 water bodies (7% of failures) fail Good Status because of the deposition of acidifying pollutants from combustion on sensitive environments. Map of surface water failures due to acidification
  • 9. Upland issues Failures due to upland condition are few Looking for cost effective multiple benefits from measures Holistic approach in uplands e.g. riparian management to reduce sediment and nutrient delivery
  • 10. Evidence gaps for pressure/impacts Risks of deterioration Efficacy of measures Value for money of measures esp. sediment/morphology lag time between implementation and ecological recovery.
  • 11. Existing mechanisms Voluntary agreements e.g. safeguard zones for drinking water Pilot studies: learning by doing NE, moorland condition and fish (non SSSI) 13 water bodies to be improved through moorland restoration (> 900 water bodies in the region) Effectiveness of catchment sensitive farming methods Taking a quality rather than quantity approach
  • 12. Implementing measures: Safeguard zones Drinking Water Protected Areas for water supply designated in WFD DrWPAs provide safe drinking water (Drinking Water Directive) Protected from deterioration in quality (reduce treatment) Key variables colour, pesticides, algae and nitrate. In England, DrWPAs protected through defining Safeguard Zones. Voluntary Safeguard Zone Action Plans to focus actions. Safeguard Zone action plan can link PR09/PR14 programmes.
  • 13. Drinking Water Protected Areas at risk of failure due tocolour 25 DrWPAs at risk in NW feeding into 10 Safeguard Zone action plans 18 DrWPAs at risk inYorkshire & North East Region, feeding into 5 Safe guard Zone action plans WPZ/ product restrictions Water Company catchment Safeguard zones schemes CoGAP/cross compliance/NVZs/CFE
  • 14. Significant Water Management Issues Addressing national scale issues in post 2015 Consultation: opportunity to raise issues Inform evidence development
  • 15. Conclusions Upland condition not big reason for failure Future deterioration unclear (incl peat) Evidence about measures needed Channel issues/evidence through SWMI and UHGImproving the evidence base learning from doing