Summary
|
SUMMARY |
Summary of Conference
Proceedings
Prepared by
INTRODUCTION
The EU Water Framework Directive (WFD), which is widely described as the most important,
far-reaching water legislation ever to emerge from the EU, came into force in
2000. Its timetable for implementation extends over 15 years, requiring good
ecological status to be achieved by 2015. The aim of WFD is to ‘establish a
Community framework for the protection of inland surface waters, transitional
waters, coastal waters and groundwater, in order to prevent and reduce
pollution, promote sustainable water use, protect the aquatic environment,
improve the status of aquatic ecosystems and mitigate the effects of floods and
droughts’. It updates and consolidates existing piecemeal EU water legislation,
whilst establishing a new, integrated approach to water protection, improvement
and sustainable use. The WFD applies to all water bodies, including rivers,
estuaries, coastal waters out to at least one nautical mile, and man-made water
bodies, and will have implications for many different industries and
activities.
A PIANC led Task Group has been established to consider and assess the implications
of the WFD for those involved in the ports, harbours, dredging and navigation
industry. The Task Group, which comprises representatives from seven different
industry groups, identified a need to raise awareness of the importance of the
WFD amongst this industry and therefore organised this seminar in
The seminar was well attended with more than eighty delegates from 16
countries, and the speakers comprised experts and key figures in their areas.
PIANC was particularly pleased to secure the attendance and active involvement
of Mr. Helmut Blöch of the European Commission’s DG Environment.
PRESENTATIONS AND DISCUSSIONS
The Seminar was divided into four sessions, the first of which was
chaired by Eric Van den Eede, President of PIANC. Mr. Van den Eede welcomed
delegates and set out the terms of reference of the Task Group :
A survey of members of some of the Associations represented on the Task
Group had shown a low level of awareness of the WFD with 58% of respondents
‘not aware’ or 'only a little aware' of the Directive. Even those who were
aware of the WFD had a limited understanding of its implications. Mr. Van Den
Eede highlighted two other important points:
Background and Context: What is the Water Framework Directive?
Mr. Van den Eede introduced the speakers in the first sessions.
Mr. Blöch of the European Commission Directorate General for
Environment, Unit Water, the Marine and Soil, gave a very informative
presentation that provided the industry with some clear guidance as to their
role in the implementation of the WFD. Mr. Blöch emphasised the crucial need
for participation and congratulated the organisers of the Seminar for its theme
and its timing. Mr. Blöch stated that there was a legal entitlement for all
stakeholders to be involved in the implementation process. The scope of the WFD
is wide, with every square km of EC territory affected and all possible impacts
on water considered regardless of their origin (navigation, agriculture etc.).
There will be biological and hydromorphological as well as traditional chemical
and physico-chemical targets. Mr. Blöch explained that while the legislation is
designed to ensure comparability and a level playing field, there must also be
flexibility to take account of the regional diversity of water bodies. This
diversity would be found at the River Basin Management Plan level.
Mr Blöch was concerned that there may have been a misunderstanding of
the relevance of a water body being designated heavily modified. Heavily
modified water bodies HMWB) will still have to meet protection and restoration
targets: ‘HMWB designation is not an excuse to do nothing’. The emphasis for
HMWB will be on improvement (where necessary) towards good ecological
potential. In Mr. Blöch’s view, the WFD is not over-regulatory and does allow
for innovation. However, given the need for a long-term planning perspective,
he urged the industry to start consultation as early as possible.
Mr Dimosthenis Megalidis of the European Commission, Directorate General
for Transport was unfortunately unable to attend but provided a statement which
Mr. Van den Eede read to the Seminar. Mr. Megalidis highlighted the importance
of short sea shipping and inland waterways in reducing wider environmental impacts.
Short sea shipping must expand to reduce the impacts of transport on the
environment but as a consequence, ports must expand with the inherent
environmental impacts. Mr. Megalidis felt that a balance would have to be found
and he suggested that global environmental benefits may outweigh local negative
effects. In any event, ports must be efficient, effective and environmentally
friendly. Mr. Megalidis praised the ESPO environmental code of practice and
ECOPORTS initiative.
The presentations of Session 1 concluded with a presentation from Mr.
Rast of the World Wildlife Fund. Mr. Rast noted that there can be conflict
between NGOs and shipping interests, and stressed the importance of
communication as the first step to finding compromise: navigation needs to be
integrated into the RBMPs. Mr. Rast set out two key principles of the WFD to
‘prevent deterioration’ and to ‘protect and improve’ water bodies; he also
restated Mr. Blöch’s comment that the emphasis of the Directive is on
improvement even in HMWBs. WWF believe that it may be necessary to place
restrictions on some navigation activities in order to meet the principles of
the WFD. WWF are not against navigation but believe that it must be compatible
with the WFD.
An interesting and lively discussion followed the presentations of which the
key points were as follows:
Implications and Issues: the Concerns Expressed
Session Two was chaired by Mr. Patrick Verhoeven, Secretary General of
ESPO, and comprised presentations from industry representatives on the possible
implications and issues associated with the WFD. Mrs. Jan Brooke, environmental
advisor to the
The following two speakers, Mr. Graham Newman of British Waterways (
The session concluded with a presentation from Mr. Axel Netzband of
Strom-und Hafenbau in
An interesting point from the following discussion was the application
of the ‘polluter pays’ principle. Although the WFD includes reference to this
principle there was significant concern amongst delegates about how it would be
applied and enforced. Ports were often considered to be paying
disproportionately for environmental clean up due to their location downstream
of pollution sources. In response, Mr. Blöch highlighted the importance of
source control, and controls on diffuse pollution resulting from the new CAP
but agreed that there was a major challenge to be faced. Mr. Blöch once more
stressed the need for the ports industry to engage in early dialogue with those
responsible for WFD implementation.
EU Working Groups and Implementation of the WFD: Progress So Far
The third session comprised a series of case studies from different
countries dealing with the progress of the implementation process. Mr. David
Corbelli of the Scottish Environmental Protection Agency introduced the EU Common
Implementation Strategy (CIS) and the guidance produced by the CIS Working
Groups. He then went on to deal in more detail with the Working Group on
heavily modified water bodies. This presentation was complemented by Dr.
Dietrich Borchardt of
Dr Stephen Hull of Associated British Ports in the
Where do we go from here?
The final session comprised a panel discussion chaired by Dr Lindsay
Murray of the
Dr. Murray asked the panel and delegates to consider three questions :
1. What should governments be doing in respect of
industry needs?
2. What should the industry sector do to prepare for the
WFD?
3. What does the seminar want the Task Group to do as a
result of the day’s discussions?
Following a lively discussion, Dr. Murray summed up under each of the
questions.
What should Government be doing?
Information and participation are the key planks of the WFD and must
involve all stakeholders. There is a legal obligation on competent authorities
to involve all key stakeholders, not only those with water quality or
ecological interests. Competent authorities must also discuss the
implementation process, both with other Regulators within a member state and
across member states. In particular, there is an urgent need for
representatives of Ministries of Transport and/or Public Works to engage in the
process. WFD implementation may require some fundamental policy choices to be
made in respect of, for example, transport, agriculture and the environment,
and it is essential that such issues are considered before detailed
arrangements for implementation are put in place. In all cases, competent
authorities need to ensure progressive timely information flow to stakeholders.
What should the Industry Sector do?
There is a clear need to raise awareness of the implications of the WFD,
not only within the sector, but also via participation of representatives of
the sector at national and EU level. A proactive approach, based on a common
understanding of WFD requirements, is needed as the industry sector must ensure
that it makes appropriate inputs to all stages of the implementation process.
The Task Group has an important role to play in facilitating this. Active
participation by relevant ports, harbours and navigation authorities in the
ongoing river basin pilot schemes could contribute to this understanding and
demonstrate potential implications.
Where necessary, the industry must be prepared to raise awareness within
the Competent Authorities of the requirement in the guidance document on public
participation under Article 14 to encourage active participation by
stakeholders throughout the processes, not merely to consult them at certain
stages of implementation.
What should the Task Group do?
The Task Group should continue to facilitate the awareness raising and experience
sharing/dissemination process. Association members need to engage in dialogue
as soon as possible, ensuring that the relevant Ministries are involved, that
concerns are clearly expressed, and that the possible practical implications of
the WFD receive consideration sufficiently early in the process. In addition,
the Task Group should ensure the effective participation of the eastern
European countries and accession states.
Conclusions
The Seminar was summed up by Mr. Van den Eede who provided the following
overall conclusions:
1. It is clear that a lot of questions about the WFD
still exist and the implications for port and navigation authorities are not
clear.
2. If the sector wants to avoid the type of problems
associated with the Birds and Habitats Directives, then they need to be
involved in discussions now.
3. The vital importance of ports and harbours and the
need for dredging to keep navigation channels open must be recognised.
4. There are already some differences in expectations
from the Commission, environmental stakeholders and the navigation sector: the
WFD requires a balanced approach based on communication, innovation and
economical analysis, but legislation must be complied with.
5. Further consideration is needed of the relationship
between European and other policies (e.g. short sea shipping) and the WFD.
6. Attention needs to be paid to the application of the
derogations to the navigation sector: a common application is needed across
member states.
7. There remains a lot of uncertainty both at the high
level and at the detailed level including on issues such as the statutory role
of port and navigation authorities, monitoring costs, stakeholder involvement,
mitigation, over-riding public interest, reference conditions and economic
assessment. Clarification is required as to who will make key decisions.
8. There is significant uncertainty about the application
of the polluter pays principle. Due to difficulties in identifying cause and
effect, navigation authorities may face disproportionate costs.
Go to: