Developing the second plans Sustainable water management for the benefit of Scotland’s people and environment

Where are we in the process? Measures reports AAG meetings Since publication of the first river basin management plan in 2009, we – the Scottish Government, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) and Scotland’s other responsible authorities and public bodies[k1]  – have invested a great deal of effort in improving our rivers, lochs, estuaries, coastal waters and groundwaters. Along the way we have strengthened relationships with water users and those delivering on-the-ground improvements; we have developed greater scientific understanding of the water environment; and we now have a fuller appreciation of the benefits our waters provide, including our role in securing them for future generations  [k1]Relevant public bodies are all responsible authorities? Some responsible authorities are not public bodies – may not matter? Describe what measures report said One line – CCCF description We now report on the condition of our waters since putting in place our 2015 objectives and highlight the key challenges preventing us from meeting those objectives, which in turn limit the benefits we all receive from the water environment. Our assessments of the current condition of our water environment and risk assessment of meeting the targets we have set for 2015 and the management challenges ahead are essential in planning for the second river basin management plan, to be published in 2015. This report therefore provides a starting point for the second cycle of river basin planning.[k1]   [k1]I haven’t managed to weave characterisation into this – think we should mention changes to GW bodies and overall review? Reminder of where we are in the RBMP process – CCCF is due to be published at end of year, and the draft second RBMP will be out for consultation at the end of 2014. This winter is an important phase in the process, where we will to engage with partners in setting objectives and agreeing measures. This meeting is a chance to comment on the approach being taken in the CCCF report, look at some key issues for the AAG, and begin to give views on our plans for objective setting and engagement for developing the second RBMPs.

Developing the Second Plans Second plans – what is different? Reviewing objectives and updating the programme of measures Engagement and consultation

Reminder – targets – Scotland RBD 2015 2021 2027 all water bodies 71% 77% 98% In North Highland this looks like; http://www.sepa.org.uk/water/river_basin_planning/area_advisory_groups/north_highland/condition_and_objectives.aspx#objectives

Our second plans – what’s different? We need to learn from the first plans and review the balance between the second and third cycles We need to base our priorities on an improved understanding of benefits and costs More emphasis on engagement, commitment and partnerships – to develop the targets and programme of measures, we need to work closely with responsible authorities and key sectors Better access to information – more useful information, more easily accessible via web Comments that you can use to support the bullets: Wherever possible, we should avoid leaving measures until the third cycle of RBMP – as part of the development of the second plans, we will review the balance of actions between the second and third cycle, and where possible we will aim to deliver improvements during the second cycle. Our priorities need to be informed by good information on costs and benefits – so when our deadlines are extended or less stringent, we should have a clear explanation of the reasons for this decision. On engagement, the challenges in delivering the plans have been the areas where partnership working is needed, or where responsible authorities must deliver measures. To achieve targets, we must work well with responsible authorities and some key sectors. The aim is to achieve better commitment to the Programme of Measures, so that measures are fully agreed with other authorities and are integrated into their policies wherever possible.

Evidence of ecological impact Reviewing objectives Evidence of ecological impact Costs and benefits of improvements and feasibility Set 2021 objectives In reviewing objectives, the following overriding general principle will be applied – the default assumption will be water bodies will meet good status by 2021 unless the justification to extend is robust. When we review the objective set for the RBMPs we: Need to be confident that there is a need for action Focus efforts where there are greatest benefits, understanding costs and prioritising accordingly. Where we are confident of a need for action, and where the benefits are clear, we will prioritise objectives for 2021. Extended or less stringent deadlines must be justified on the basis that there is insufficient certainty over the ecological impact, or a poor balance between costs and benefits. SEPA and Scottish Government have agreed that a review of all extended deadlines is to be undertaken to ensure that there is sufficient justification to extend them beyond the end of the second plan (ie from 2021 to 2027).

Objective setting for pressures where public funding is key Assessment: Evidence of impact Measures and responsible owner Benefits Costs Objectives are set based on these assessments Examples; Sewage QnS uses cost benefit analysis Morphology Hydro Irrigation For each pressure we are in a different situation with regards to how this information is already available. There, priorities are set once there is clear evidence of an impact on the water environment, and costs and benefits are considered as part of the prioritisation and investment process. The objectives set for improvement are based on evidence, focused where there are the greatest benefits, and proportionate. For the key pressures (diffuse pollution, morphological changes, abstraction) we are working within certain constraints. For example, on morphology, we need to understand where there is clear evidence that restoration is needed, and what restoration action is proportionate. We need a process which identifies benefits and costs. For morphology, as a significant amount of the pressures are ‘historic’ we are most likely to set objectives where there is an opportunity to achieve multiple benefits, and where there are identified opportunities for partnership working, such as links with forestry, open space, flood risk management and development plans. For example, on hydropower, we need to assess what objectives can be set without significant impacts on power generation. On irrigation, we will only set second cycle objectives where there is clear evidence of ecological damage, and analysis of costs and benefits would be used to set priorities.

Engagement to develop the plans Late 2013 Early 2014 Mid 2014-2015 End 2015 Heads-up Review objectives & draft PoMs Refinement Plan 2 Formal consultation Phase 1 – Heads up and planning engagement At this point in the process, we are interested in reviewing our ideas, and checking that we haven’t missed important constraints, or opportunities. We want AGs to advise on opportunities for input into the process, and our ideas about engagement. How do we get engagement right, so people can influence the process and the plans? The phases of work are then: Between December and March we will develop draft objectives, working with responsible authorities, key sectors and other stakeholders. We will work to develop a programme of measures with partners. Scenarios??? From mid 2014 we will continue to refine the information we are basing 2nd plans on, and refine the programme of measures. We are looking at active engagement to help us with this at appropriate scales e.g. AG or catchment meeting level. As well as any additional sector specific discussions required. Consultation on the draft plans will start in late 2014, and run until around June 2015, before the finalised plan is published

Engagement planned – measures Local authorities Morphology, fish barriers, diffuse pollution, contaminated land, INNS Briefing letter, info packs, workshops Scottish Water Flows, diffuse pollution, urban waste water, fish barriers National level meetings Marine Scotland Morphology, water quality Forestry Commission Scotland Morphology, diffuse pollution, acidification, INNS Regional workshops? SNH Protected areas, INNS DPMAG Diffuse pollution, morphology Via DPMAG Other meetings? Fishery sector Fish barriers, INNS, morphology Via RAFTS and FFAG. Other engagement? Catchment groups & NGOs. Morphological restoration Meetings with groups Hydro sector Flows and fish migration Workshops? Engagement planned – measures Operators – in terms of understanding costs & benefits. Will only do where there is a scenario testing element. Ask re others? If possible, try for some breakout discussion at this point. Programming in.

Engagement on information about benefits Improved water environment

Shape of the formal consultation Focused on key areas for consultation Set out progress and achievements Supported by improved web tools Propose to use editorial groups to develop and review documents and tools In response to feedback from Getting Involved, about effective use of resources and stakeholder time, we plan to produce a focused consultation document. To engage with stakeholders effectively in preparing the document, we will set up a small editorial group for each RBD. All stakeholders will then have opportunity to respond through formal consultation. Seek verbal feedback at this point. Focused consultation documents rather than draft plans in response to feedback on previous plans, AG feedback generally about resources and feedback to Getting Involved consultation Not advisory groups – trying to limit but make effective and respond to feedback about good use of resources *This slide needs some further explanation*. Seek verbal feedback from group at this point, so make it more consultative. During the production of the first draft RBMPs and final documents the NAG and AAGs commented on draft documents, then consultation – this was protracted process, so we recommend a more efficient approach for stakeholders. Proposal is 4 user groups with review meetings.

Advice on engagement plan invited Questions Advice on engagement plan invited