china europe water platform - mwr.gov.cncewp.mwr.gov.cn/zszx/201402/p020140227403457540831.pdf ·...
TRANSCRIPT
The EU-China Policy Dialogues Support Facility (PDSF II) is a project financed jointly by the European Union and the Government
of the People's Republic of China, implemented by a consortium led by Grontmij A/S.
This publication has been produced with the assistance of the European Union. The content is the sole responsibility of Grontmij
A/S and can in no way be taken to reflect the views of the European Union.
China Europe Water Platform
Technical Research on Integrated Permitting of Water Resources
(Task A07-1)
on behalf of
Ministry of Water Resources (MWR)
DG Environment (ENV)
DG Development and Cooperation (DEVCO)
Martin Griffiths, Dong Yanfei, Cheng Dongsheng, Palle Grevy and Liu Linghua,
November 2013
Locations EU and China
Dialogue partners Minstry of Water Resources, China
DG Environment (ENV)
International Economic and Technical Exchange and
Cooperation Centre of the Ministry of Water
China Institute of Water Resources and Hydropower
Research
Grontmij A/S
Brief description of assignment This report investigates integrated water resources permitting
policy and practice in Europe and China and develops options
for potential review and reform in China.
The activity was undertaken under the Governance Pillar of the
China Europe Water Platform (CEWP).
This report examines the current water resource regulatory and
permitting approaches in Europe, focusing on UK and Denmark.
It also reviews current water resource permitting in China.
The study aimed to develop a common understanding of
permitting methodology, with a view to understanding
principles and practice with the potential for application in
China.
This report was prepared by a team of European and Chinese
experts and practitioners who undertook the study with a view
to developing a common understanding of options available to
water managers that will increase water security and could
speed up the reform of water resource management in China.
Knowledge exchange on water permitting was a key aim.
Workshops, lectures and seminars were held with water
managers from south and north China and with other
influential groups. Internships and a structured training
programme to Hungary, UK and Denmark were linked to this
work.
Tasked by Chris Brown
Programme Manager, EU-China Policy Dialogues Support
Facility (PDSF)
PDSF activity number Task A07-1
Task A07-1
China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page i
Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013
Acknowledgements
The principal contributors to the drafting of this study were Dr Martin Griffiths from the UK,
Palle Grevy from Grontmij A/S in Denmark and Dr Cheng Dongsheng of the China Institute of
Water Resources and Hydropower Research.
A Chinese team, led by Dong Yanfei, Director of the International Economic and Technical
Exchange and Cooperation Centre of the Ministry of Water, facilitated the partnership work
and ensured that the interactions were optimised, especially the internal meetings with MWR
and other bureaus and agencies. Mrs Sun Yan, Mrs Liu Linghua, Miss Wu Zheru and Miss
Lihui have also contributed to this study team significantly. The exchange and dissemination
elements were particularly valuable, especially the two workshops on integrated permitting,
one in Jiangsu on 7 May 2013 for southern China and one in Hu'lun'bei'er, Inner Mongolia, on
24 September 2013,for northern China. We thank those that attended and the organisers.
The team would also like to thank the EU Policy Dialogue Support Fund II (PDSF) project
team, especially Chris Brown who ensured co-ordination and gave considerable support
throughout.
Thanks also to Grontmij A/S in Denmark who supported this work on behalf of PDSF,
particularly, Kim Madsbjerg, Stefan Einarsson and Palle Grevy. They helped with the
overview, the internships and the structured training programme to Europe.
We would like to thank to the other core members of the China Europe Water Platform
(CEWP): Henrik Dissing as co-ordinator, Lars Anderson, leading the Research Pillar and
Simon Spooner, leading the Business Pillar. The cross-cutting potential of this work has been
helped by their input and support.
The EU and Member States contributed to the development of much of the technical policy and
guidance material in this report. We are grateful that this is available and thank them for the
ability to reproduce this, with full acknowledgement.
The EU Delegation in Beijing was crucial for the funding and commissioning of this study.
Thanks should go to the Development and Cooperation Section who supported the initial work
programme and to Cesar Moreno, who has recently joined and added this to his work portfolio.
Task A07-1
China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page ii
Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements i
Summary vii
1 Introduction 1
1.1 Study Scope 1
1.2 Regulatory Principles 2
1.2.1 Why should we regulate and permit water resources? 2
1.2.2 Proportionate Approach to Permitting 4
1.2.3 Risk Based Approach to Permitting 5
1.2.4 Integrated River Basin Management 6
1.2.5 Links to Spatial Planning 6
1.2.6 Links to Environmental Impact Analysis (EIA) 7
1.3 Future Trends in Water and Environmental Regulation 8
1.4 Project Working Method 10
2 Institutional Arrangements in Europe 12
2.1 Overview 12
2.2 Sovereignty and principles of subsidiarity in EU environmental
legislation 12
2.3 Competent Authority Role 14
2.4 River basin management in Europe 15
2.5 Enforcement and control 17
2.6 International co-ordination and co-operation 18
2.7 Best practice on water management in EU 20
2.8 Environmental Protection Agencies and Equivalent 21
2.8.1 Breadth of function 21
2.8.2 Air, Land and Water 22
2.8.3 The Case for Independent Water Regulation 22
2.8.4 Funding 23
Task A07-1
China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page iii
Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013
2.9 UK Environment Agency 23
2.10 IMPEL Network - best practice across EU regulators 25
2.11 European Environment Agency 26
3 Setting Environmental Standards and Environmental
Monitoring 28
3.1 River Basin Planning 28
3.2 The Objectives and Water Standards 30
3.3 Monitoring 31
4 EU/ UK Approach to Water Permitting 34
4.1 Water Framework Directive 34
4.2 EU Water Blueprint 35
4.3 UK Water Law 35
4.4 UK Permits 36
4.4.1 Water Quantity/Water Resources 37
4.4.2 Water Quality 38
4.5 Permit application process 38
4.5.1 Abstraction Permit or Licence 39
4.5.2 Discharge permit process UK 39
4.6 Permit application forms 40
4.7 Permit format and examples 41
4.7.1 Current UK Permit 41
4.8 Permit conditions 42
4.9 Monitoring, inspection and compliance assessment 43
4.9.1 Monitoring and inspection terminology 43
4.9.2 Monitoring of permit Conditions – Overview 44
4.9.3 Quality assurance 44
4.9.4 Choice of Sampling Point 45
4.9.5 Access, facilities and services 45
4.9.6 Sample bottles, storage and transportation. 46
4.9.7 Laboratory analysis and choosing a method 46
4.9.8 Flow measurement 47
4.10 Permit Charging Systems – Cost Recovery 47
4.11 Future UK Permits 50
4.12 Enforcement and Prosecution 50
4.13 Public Access to information 55
4.13.1 EA What’s in my Backyard – 55
4.14 Pollution Incidents 58
4.14.1 National Incident Recording System and database 60
4.15 Communication and Publicity on Water and Environment 61
Task A07-1
China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page iv
Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013
5 Case Study - Water Permitting in Denmark 65
5.1 Administrative arrangements in Denmark 65
5.1.1 Planning, permitting and delegation of responsibilities 65
5.1.2 Ministry of Environment and the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) 66
5.1.3 The municipalities 67
5.1.4 River Basin Management Planning 68
5.2 Application and Permitting Procedures - Overview 69
5.3 Complex Permissions 70
5.3.1 EIA Based Permissions 70
5.3.2 IPPC based permissions 71
5.3.3 Seveso Directive Based Permissions 72
5.4 Discharge of Water - Simple Applications Denmark 73
5.4.1 The application process 74
5.4.2 Application forms 75
5.4.3 Example of information required on temporary discharge of
water to the ocean 76
5.4.4 Example of information in an application for household
discharge into sewer systems 77
5.4.5 Example - Discharge of water - Copenhagen 77
5.4.6 General approach for permitting on discharges to sewer
systems 78
5.4.7 Example format and content of simple permission 78
5.5 Abstraction of Water - Simple Applications - Denmark 80
5.5.1 Simple application process for abstraction permit 82
5.5.2 Abstraction of drinking and irrigation water in the open land
82
5.5.3 Abstraction in densely populated town areas 83
5.5.4 Simple application forms 83
5.5.5 Example Abstraction of drinking and irrigation water in the
open land 84
5.5.6 Abstraction in densely populated town areas 86
5.6 Example - Format and content a simple permission 86
5.7 Inspection and compliance assessment 89
5.8 Enforcement 90
5.8.1 Admonition 90
5.8.2 Enforcement order 90
5.8.3 Enjoinment 90
5.8.4 Self-help activities 91
5.8.5 Loss of environmental liability 91
Task A07-1
China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page v
Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013
6 Chinese Approach to Water Regulation 92
6.1 Chinese Legal Framework-Water Protection and Regulation 92
6.2 Key Ministries-Roles and Responsibilities 95
6.3 Roles of Provinces and River Basin Authorities 98
6.4 Three red Lines 99
6.5 Water Protection Zones (Water Functional Area) 104
6.6 Current Permits 105
6.6.1 How are they set/modelled and river need calculations? 105
6.6.2 Environmental Flow 105
6.6.3 Water Drawing Permits 106
6.6.4 Water Pollution/Water Quality Permits 112
6.7 Monitoring 114
6.7.1 Monitoring of Permit Compliance 114
6.7.2 Monitoring of receiving environment 116
6.8 Enforcement and Sanctions 117
6.9 Charging/Cost recovery 117
6.10 Supervision and inspection 119
6.11 Public Access to information 120
7 Proposals for Review and Reform of Water Permits in
China 121
7.1 Justification and overview 121
7.2 Approach and structure 123
7.3 Policy Planning 125
7.4 Set Environmental Objectives 126
7.5 Permit Legislation 128
7.6 Set Permit 129
7.7 Inspection and Monitoring of Permits 131
7.8 Assess Compliance 132
7.9 Enforcement Options 133
7.10 Communication 134
7.11 Change Programme 134
Task A07-1
China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page vi
Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013
8 Glossary of Terms 138
Annex 1 – EU Permit Examples 141
Annex 2 – Key Document Library and References 143
Task A07-1
China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page vii
Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013
Summary
This report forms part of the policy dialogue between China and the EU in the water sector. It
is a China Europe Water Platform (CEWP) study which builds on the previous Strategic
Knowledge Exchange Programme from the EU China River Basin Management Programme
(EU China RBMP).
The study was set the following agreed objectives
Improved licensing and permitting of water abstraction and discharge.
Improved access to policy, strategy and legal documents in China and Europe on
inter alia water efficiency.
Mobilisation of the research and business communities.
Enhanced visibility of the CEWP in China and Europe
The study supports the Chinese Ministry of Water Resources in reviewing and upgrading the
existing Water Abstraction Permitting Procedures and will assist in initiating cooperation with
the Ministry of Environmental Protection to develop proposals for a more integrated approach
to water resources permitting procedures for China. It will make available EU experience and
knowledge of water regulatory systems and permitting, elements of which may be adapted for
use in China. In addition, knowledge of the current and proposed water permitting system in
China will be of importance to research and business communities co-operating with Chinese
water research, business and infrastructure.
The key findings of this report are:
1. There are significant similarities in administrative approach to water resources
permitting in the EU and China. The overall regulatory framework, application
procedures, granting of permits and the basics of regulation are parallel in many
ways. This has assisted in a mutual understanding and common dialogue
resulting in the adoption of the common permitting and regulatory model shown in
Figure 1. This provides a structure for the report and the basis for discussion and
future development.
Task A07-1
China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page viii
Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013
Figure 1- Water Resource Permitting and the Regulatory Cycle
2. Permitting must be viewed in the context of long term water resource planning and
the setting of clear and protective environmental objectives. These objectives and
standards determine the conditions set in the permits
3. The China No.1 Water Document1 potentially provides adequate strategic direction
for water resource reform and sustainable practice, provided that it is implemented
effectively.
4. The Three Red Lines Policy and the developing guidance provide a strong basis for
setting standards for water resources, water efficiency and water quality.
However these standards can only be protective if used to set stringent standards
which can improve water security and environmental protection.
5. An initial review of the water resource legislation in China indicates that the majority
of legal powers and provisions are in place to secure strong permit conditions.
There are some contradictions in elements of the regulations that mean that
regulatory responsibilities are not always clear.
6. The concept of a lead role or ‘competent authority’ that has clear oversight of the
regulatory process is recommended. This concept has worked well across the EU
in the implementation of environmental directives. It is suggested that MRW is
empowered to take a clear lead and to work with other Ministries and
implementation authorities to ensure co-ordinated and robust delivery.
1 The China No.1 Water Document 2011, published 31 December 2010, in force 1 January 2011, is a formal decision of the
Central Committee of the Communist Party of China (CPC) and the State Council on accelerating the water conservancy reform
and development
Task A07-1
China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page ix
Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013
7. Concerns are expressed at the implementation stage of permit determination.
Many current permits are ‘administrative’ and permit standards do not link
adequately to the targets set to protect the water resource, in terms of quality and
quantity. In addition there are conflicts of interest, especially at provincial and
municipal levels where responsibilities to promote economic growth clash with the
need for water resource protection. Permits are not written in a way that allows for
clear understanding of what is expected by the regulated or the regulators. This
makes enforcement and compliance assessment difficult, if not impossible.
8. Inspection and monitoring of permits appears inconsistent and patchy across
administrations. There is little or no data sharing or evidence of compliance
assessment within or across river basins. The lack of a ‘feedback loop’ makes
water resource planning and review and improvement difficult to target and
optimise.
9. Very little enforcement action is apparent, apart from reaction to some extreme
negligence or deliberate polluting actions, where sanctions can be extreme.
There seems little proportionality or consistency of approach that would provide
improved understanding of the importance of meeting permit conditions.
Enforcement and prosecution information and reports were not available.
10. Communication across government stakeholders is weak and new methods to
communicate the importance of increased water security, the steps needed to
improve and current and future performance is lacking. Communication to the
regulated community, industry and municipalities, and the general public would
assist in changing attitudes to water resource protection and improvement.
11. Additional training and competence building is essential if these reforms are to be
successful. New monitoring programmes for the water environment and the
permitted abstractions and discharges are needed. Laboratory and data handling
facilities will need to be developed.
12. The EU undertook most water resource reforms and environmental improvements
during periods of economic growth. China is in a similar phase at present and
should take the opportunity to increase water security and reduce environmental
impact, through following a path of sustainable and integrated water resource
management.
13. Modern Regulatory approaches are being implemented in EU as part of wider
regulatory reforms across government. Some lessons could be learnt from these
approaches and more effective and risk based regulation may assist in driving this
forward.
14. A significant Change Programme on Permitting is recommended to develop and
introduce these concepts into operational use in China
15. A second stage of co-operation on water resource planning and permitting between
China and the EU is recommended to speed up reform and reduce implementation
risks. This should include developing ‘top to bottom’ worked examples utilising the
permitting and regulatory model developed. This could take the form of pilot studies
on real water bodies (surface and groundwater) and placing water resources
experts together to exchange views and develop innovative methods to suit China.
Task A07-1
China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page x
Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013
Finally, China has a great opportunity to undertake this reform. It was signalled in the No. 1
Policy Document in 2011. Many of the basic building blocks are in place, but significant
change is required to ensure water security and the sustainable long-term protection of water
resources. The computer power, modelling facilities, hydrology and engineering skills are all
available and these changes can be achieved if the vision and need is communicated well to
those who can drive the changes forward. Partnership working may accelerate progress and
build strong working relationships between China and Europe.
A summary of these findings was presented at the CEWP High Level Conference, held in
association with the Budapest Water Summit which ran from the 8th to 11th October 2013. A
structured training programme to Hungary, UK and Denmark has been aligned with this study.
It enabled delegates to see some of the elements of water resource regulation highlighted in
this report. In addition an internship programme to Denmark and Hungary was developed for
two senior water resource managers. It took place in September and early October 2013 and
focussed on aspects of this permitting study, in a wide EU policy and operational context.
Task A07-1
China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 1
Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013
1 Introduction
1.1 Study Scope
The study focusses on the permitting processes in use in the EU and China with a view to
understanding best practice elements that may be used in a potential review of permits in
China.
Water permitting and water resource protection cannot be seen in isolation. It is an integral
part of the river basin planning process. Permits must reflect the agreed objectives in the
water environment and the conditions are set to ensure the maintenance and possible
improvement of the receiving waters. They should also reflect the risks identified in the
catchment and the need to mitigate and control impacts.
If there were no abstractors or polluting dischargers, there would be no need for permits.
Operators abstracting water and/or discharging effluent need to be aware of their impact on
the water environment and other water users in the catchment. The permits should be seen
as a privilege and a benefit to the holder. Without a permit they would be subject to
prosecution for illegally abstracting or discharging water.
The permit should be clear and holders should ensure that the conditions are met and if
necessary reductions in abstraction or improvements in quality are met. Early disclosure of
need should ensure that permit conditions are realistic and achievable. This should allow
stable operating of treatment plants, known costs and planned operation and maintenance.
For the reasons above the project scope and report structure can be summarised in Figure 1.
It will focus on the permitting process cycle, in the context of policy planning and
environmental objectives.
The flowing Figure 1.1 from the UK Environment Agency shows the wider context of permit
setting and the red circle indicates the focus of the interest on the Water Abstraction Permit
System. Similar principles apply to water quality planning.
In simple terms, China undertakes the supply and demand assessment (right hand side)
competently and feeds this into the permitting system, even though there are concerns over
Task A07-1
China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 2
Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013
the inadequate resolution of the water resource allocation system. However the Ecological
Needs Assessment (left hand side) is still in its infancy.
Figure 1.1 Permit Context – Water Allocation Planning
Therefore, this study focusses on the permitting elements, in the context of the wider water
resource regulatory systems.
1.2 Regulatory Principles
1.2.1 Why should we regulate and permit water resources?
Water is a scarce and critical natural resource which needs protection from over abstraction,
water pollution and physical and morphological changes.
Regulation enables this resource to be used, protected and shared by society within the
framework of sustainable development, namely in societal, economic and environmental
terms; for current and future generations.
Taking the sustainable development model, the need and benefits of regulation and permitting
can be seen in the following terms.
Societal
To ensure public health, clean water supply and sanitation to all
Task A07-1
China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 3
Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013
To ensure equitable sharing of water resources within international, national,
regional and local boundaries; and/or at river basin, sub-basin and water body
level
To accommodate and provide for urban and agricultural development
To reduce the impacts of floods and drought
To ensure the affordability of potable water and sanitation for essential uses
To ensure food production through irrigation (need water efficiency here)
To optimise fish production for food
To ensure access for recreation, education, and tourism
To ensure religious and cultural wellbeing (e.g. India and religious bathing)
Economic
To promote sustainable economic development, industry and wealth creation
To allocate scarce water resource equitably between sectors. For instance,
agriculture, industry and domestic users, whilst leaving enough for the river
ecology to continue to thrive.
To ensure a level playing field (internationally, nationally and locally) for industry
requiring water for production and process
To ensure certainty and to reduce investment risks within a marketplace
To ensure affordable raw water and wastewater costs and to clearly indicate
treatment cost and liabilities
To prevent monopoly water suppliers from distorting markets
To ensure clear requirements for water use and pollution control measures through
clear and understandable permits and regulatory environment.
To ensure navigation, ports and trade, tourism and recreational industries
To improve health and safety of workforce and local communities
To reduce risks to industry, including continuity of supply, quality of supply and
regulatory and prosecution risk
To ensure that the polluter pays
To encourage innovation
To optimise environmental service provision from the natural environment
Environmental
To ensure healthy environmental ecosystems and wetlands
To protect biodiversity and the aquatic systems that they rely on
To optimise river morphology and encourage best ecological potential for heavily
modified waters
To optimise river catchment function to reduce flooding and drought
To ensure continuity of flow, environmental signals (eg freshets for migratory fish)
and minimal physical barriers
To ensure minimum river flows, manage sedimentation and maintain river
morphology
To ensure sustainable groundwater levels and soil water interactions
Task A07-1
China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 4
Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013
To optimise sustainable use of environmental services by society at least cost
To identify and reduce anthropogenic risks to wildlife, fisheries and the natural
environment
To promote awareness and knowledge of environmental value through education
To ensure the precautionary principle with regard to ecosystem protection
To preserve landscape, geography and water related features
Fair, efficient and effective regulation of water resources is an essential element for ensuring
water security in and increasingly uncertain world. If used well it should optimise societal
wellbeing within a framework of sustainable development.
The following quotation from OECD assists in this understanding
Environmental permitting is a key instrument for reducing industry’s environmental
impacts, facilitating its compliance with environmental requirements and promoting
technological innovation.
Example of investment based on safe and well regulated water infrastructure
In January 2012, CIC – China’s Sovereign Wealth Fund – bought an 8.68% minority
stake in Kemble Water, the parent company of leading UK utility group Thames Water,
which supplies water and sewerage services to approximately 14m people in London
and the Thames Valley.
This marks ‘The growing preference of Chinese investors for low-risk physical assets
offering safe and stable returns’. Commenting at the time, Mr Lou Jiwei, the chairman
of the CIC, stated that he was pleased to invest in a safe and well regulated business
environment. Telegraph Newspaper 13 January 2013
1.2.2 Proportionate Approach to Permitting
It is important to ensure that regulatory activities, including permitting are proportionate to the
risks posed by the installation. This means that there must be a balance of risk, regulatory
pressure and benefit to the permit holder and the regulator. The demands of permit
application process monitoring, reporting and other issues on the operator should be
reasonable. However, the regulator, on behalf of society must ensure adequate protection
and certainty that the installation is operating safely and that risks are minimised. The
resources allocated by the regulator must be allocated according to those risks and the
potential benefits that can be achieved.
The optimisation of this proportionate approach and to improve the balance between
regulated and regulator is the subject of many of the Modern Regulation reforms that are
taking place around the world. This is highlighted in section 1.3 below.
Task A07-1
China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 5
Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013
1.2.3 Risk Based Approach to Permitting
Risk management is a proactive approach focused on the design of measures that will be put
in place in advance of extreme events to prevent or mitigate the level of risk exposure and,
hence, vulnerability to impacts. The traditional approach in Europe in the previous century and
still predominant in China was to be reactive, taking a disaster mitigation approach to extreme
events, rather than a more proactive approach.
The terminology of ‘risk management’ and ‘risk based approaches’ is being used increasingly
frequent for water security strategies developed worldwide as well as for this project. The
terminology should be clarified to increase understanding and to stimulate the uptake and
further development of these techniques. Extreme events in water security context include the
risk of flooding, drought, and pollution.
The concept of risk management in water planning is based on the following:
• the knowledge that extreme events will recur
• that the severity of the event cannot be predicted in advance
• that preparation and planning is necessary to mitigate the range of possible impacts
• that mitigation is an on-going process involving structural and non-structural measures
• that all water users have a responsibility to manage water as efficiently as possible.
Risk management in water planning seeks to build resilience in water infrastructure through
structural and non-structural measures in an on-going process. It requires the development of
a clear understanding of what type of extreme event might be expected to happen in the future
and take account of what has happened in the past. The likelihood of extreme events has to be
considered alongside the estimated impact on people, the economy and the environment. It
helps to identify weaknesses in water infrastructure and opportunities for managing impacts
by addressing the risk factors.
Risk Management relies on strong evidence to assess the likelihood of extreme events that
could jeopardise water security, together with the potential impact and losses to society and
the environment. This is achieved by using the best quality information available using
predictive models (forecasting) to estimate where extreme events could occur and by
reviewing accounts of past events.
These risk based approaches continue to develop in Europe and China and aim to allow the
best technical estimations of probability and impact to be assessed. They are based on
modelled and statistical appraisals of available information. They should allow decision
makers to prioritise and gain maximum water security for known expenditure and timescale.
In a changing climate, and as uncertainty increases, these risk based approaches become
more important. As climate change adaptation measures are developed, the assumptions will
Task A07-1
China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 6
Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013
be critical in designing flexible responses and infrastructure solutions. However, these risk
based assumptions are only part of the decision making process. Broader political, social and
economic considerations are equally important for the final decisions to be taken by
well-informed politicians.
1.2.4 Integrated River Basin Management
Integrated river basin management (IRBM) is at the intellectual heart of the EU and Chinese
approaches to water management, however, the maturity of approach and extent of
application differ.
Isolated measures to improve water security cannot be successful without taking account of
what happens upstream and downstream. Integrated river basin management adopts a
holistic approach to protecting the whole body of water, its source, tributaries, its main rivers,
lakes, and groundwater, through a coordinated strategy involving all the interested parties in
decision-making. The river basin approach is acknowledged in Europe as the best way to
manage water.
In 2000, the European Union took a ground-breaking step when it adopted the Water
Framework Directive (WFD). It introduced a new legislative approach to managing and
protecting water, based not on national or political boundaries, but on natural geographical
and hydrological formations: river basins. These are known as River Basin Districts. IRBM
needs clear coordination and collaboration between administrative authorities and
stakeholders within the river basin.
In China IRBM is applied through river basin water resources commissions, for instance the
Changjiang Water Resources Commission and the Yellow River Conservancy Commission,
but it is hampered by provincial authorities having significant authority over tributaries and
limited representation in the commissions. The No.1 Document signals a significant reform in
approach and acknowledges the need to include the tributaries in future priorities.
Organisationally there are administrative divides between the Ministry of Water Resources,
the Ministry of Environmental Protection, and between the Provinces and other ministries with
their own mandates on specific parts of water resources protection and development.
Coordination does take place and operational teams do work together but often within
complex institutional settings. The EU WFD introduces the concept of a single competent
authority to take overall responsibility for river basins to overcome some of these issues.
1.2.5 Links to Spatial Planning
Maintaining water security requires a long term vision and should be integrally linked to spatial
planning for urban and regional development in both developing as developed areas. Water
resource management is a fundamental element of development planning and should be
Task A07-1
China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 7
Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013
designed into infrastructure projects at an early stage, taking into account the social and
economic development opportunities improved water resources can bring. Modelling can test
future development scenarios and identify options that could optimise decisions.
However there must be a balance between spatial planning and the availability of water.
Planners must realise that the availability of water is not endless and this may be one of the
most limiting factors impacting on city and industrial development. Dialogue must be
maintained on these issues and options to minimise impact developed. In some cases
optimisation of water can bring design innovation in building and in water saving societies.
The concept of eco-cities has developed from this dialogue.
Ultimately the availability of water will be limiting and the water planners and regulators may
have to say no to further water exploitation in water scarce areas. In the UK the Environment
Agency has final say, subject to appeal to Ministers. This is usually via the refusal to grant a
permit or by imposing environmentally protective conditions in permits that may render the
industry un-economic. Industry then has to decide whether a new installation is viable or not.
The availability of water is determined through the river basin planning process and the
monitoring and modelling assessments. Setting river quality objectives and outcomes must
allow the minimum standards to allow a healthy river to be clear and technically well defined.
Ideally these would be set by the Ministry of Water Resources and backed by legally binding
provisions. These could be implemented by the ‘Three Red Lines Policy’ provided the
standards are set to provide water security and water resource protection, or the policy is used
to progressively tighten standards in a measured sequence. These standards must not be
exceeded. In fact most water environment improvement programmes are driven by a
progressive tightening of environmental standards, and consequential reviews of permits that
will enable these new standards to be met.
1.2.6 Links to Environmental Impact Analysis (EIA)
Environmental Impact Analysis (EIA) is often the mechanism to achieve dialogue and
interaction between spatial and water planers. EIA can help to analyse the environmental
issues and to communicate options and risks to decision makers, industry and the public.
In Denmark (Section 5) EIA is an integral part of the application and permit determination
process for complex permits. The technical information gathered determines the permit
conditions and public consultation.
In UK an EIA is usually undertaken in parallel with the permit application process for large
installations, especially those under the IPPC Directive. Impacts on air, land and water are
considered. It is used to gather information and to facilitate dialogue with all parties.
Task A07-1
China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 8
Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013
EIAs are an important mechanism to logically analyse and communicate issues surrounding
the potential impact of a permitted abstraction or discharge, including the wider spatial
planning context and sustainability issues. However, an EIA is only as good as the information
that it contains, and the consequent protection measures applied via the permit. There are
examples where a poor or biased EIA is undertaken by developers, or industry, as a
procedural step and is used a ‘tick box’ to press through development without adequate
protection. In these cases an EIA can be counter-productive or damaging to the process.
A high quality approach to EIA development and validation is critical to the process.
1.3 Future Trends in Water and Environmental Regulation
Two key elements should be considered here. Firstly the move towards Integrated Pollution
Prevention and Control (IPPC); and secondly the simplification and reform of regulation,
through initiatives such as the UK Modern Regulation initiative.
‘Modern regulation aims to find the right balance – a proportionate, risk-based response,
that will drive environmental improvements, reward good performance, but still provide
the ultimate reassurance that tough action will be taken on those who fail to meet
acceptable standards.’
It makes the case for modernisation of regulation with the following:
‘Traditional regulation has achieved much. But the nature of regulation has to change to
keep pace with changes in the economy and society. We are further developing our
approach to regulation to improve and protect the environment. Our approach is
outcome-focused and risk-based, clearly communicated and is delivered in a consistent
manner.’
The Environment Agency paper suggests
‘Any modern regulatory regime must meet five principles. It must be:
transparent – we must have rules and processes which are clear to those in
businesses and local communities
accountable – we must explain ourselves and our performance
consistent – we must apply the same approach within and between sectors and over
time
proportionate (or risk-based) – we must allocate resources according to the risks
involved and the scale of outcomes which can be achieved
targeted (or outcome-focused) – the environmental outcome must be central to our
planning and in assessing our performance.
Task A07-1
China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 9
Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013
We also believe regulations must be practicable. The regulators need to be funded to let them
do their job and it must be clear to businesses what they have to do.’
The model can be summarised with the following Figure 1.3.1 from the report.
Figure 1.3.1 Overview of Modern Regulation – Environment Agency
Regulatory method can also be selected from a regulatory tool box approach, selecting the
most efficient and effective option to achieve the outcomes. Figure 1.3.2 represents these
options
Figure 1.3.2 Regulatory Options – Environment Agency
These principles could be applied to the review of permits in China and may form a useful
approach in developing a business case for ensuring reform and revision of the proposed
permitting processes that would be acceptable for government and industry in this growth
phase China is experiencing.
Task A07-1
China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 10
Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013
1.4 Project Working Method
The short and intensive programme was jointly developed with MWR to exchange knowledge
on regulation and permitting practices. The approach which evolved was unconventional and
sits outside the normal environmental and engineering consultancy sphere. All involved have
learnt important lessons that will be of significance to future work in China and Europe. In
many respects the process of knowledge exchange with the team and the wider water
resource community was more important than this written report. The report structure and
content reflects the dialogue and emphasises those issues thought important by the team.
Two European experts were involved; Martin Griffiths, from the UK, spent time in China and
Palle Grevy, from Denmark, who worked from his home base. As a consequence examples
provided are largely from UK and Denmark, but are set in a broader European context. In
addition examples of water abstraction and water quality are provided from UK, Denmark,
France, Germany and the Netherlands. These will be part of an electronic annex.
A Chinese team, led by Dong Yanfei, Director of the International Department of the Ministry of
Water resources was set up. Much of the drafting work in the section on the current Chinese
Approach to Water Permitting was written by Dr Cheng Dongsheng of the Institute of Water
and Hydraulic Research.
All were engaged in the discussion and development of the Chapter on Proposals for Review
and Reform of Water Permits in China.
The European expert, Martin Griffiths worked in the MWR office to allow intensive interaction
and joint development and exchange on the project and on a wide range of day to day issues.
This allowed one to one working and joint development and understanding of themes.
The development of the report was used as the main theme of discussion and joint
development of ideas, with the overall objective of developing a fully shared view of issues and
permitting options for China.
From this core activity opportunities were taken to contribute to training courses for Water
Resource Managers from across China. These included two workshops on integrated
permitting, one in Jiangsu on 7 May 2013 for southern China and one in Hu'lun'bei'er, Inner
Mongolia, on 24 September 2013 for northern China, with a total of about 500 participants.
Two senior water resources managers were interned into the Nature Agency in Denmark for a
month, culminating in attendance at the Word Water Summit in Budapest, Hungary, in
October 2013. Their internship programme was focussed on aspects of this permitting study,
in a wide EU policy and operational context.
A structured training programme to Hungary, UK and Denmark in October 2013 was aligned
with this study. It enabled delegates to see some of the elements of water resource
regulation highlighted in this report.
Task A07-1
China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 11
Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013
Finally, a summary of these findings was presented at the CEWP High Level Conference, held
in association with the Budapest Water Summit which ran from the 8th to 11th October 2013.
Task A07-1
China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 12
Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013
2 Institutional Arrangements in Europe
2.1 Overview
Water management across Europe has developed at various speeds and has taken different
forms based on history, pace of economic growth, legal frameworks, geography and the
complexity of some international river basins.
Since the 1970’s the EU has developed a legislative framework that progressively aligned
European approaches and adopted best practice. This culminated in the development and
adoption of the Water Framework Directive. Within this regulatory framework space has
been maintained for individual Member States to achieve the essential water resource
outcomes using methods and solutions best suited to their situation. It provides for some
‘creative tensions’ and encourages national ownership, that can lead to innovative
approaches and achieve the agreed outcomes. These principles of devolution, subsidiarity
and sovereignty are important to the success of the EU approach.
Similar principles may apply to the Chinese situation where geographic size, provincial
administrations, social diversity and other issues may require similar devolved approaches to
implementation.
2.2 Sovereignty and principles of subsidiarity in EU environmental legislation
Since the first treaties for establishing the European Community there has been a discussion
of the legislative power of the Union at the expense of the sovereignty of the national member
states. Most member states were originally comfortable with the allocation of powers to the
Community in general and power over environmental questions in particular. However, Britain,
well known both for its practically unrivalled sensitivity on questions of national sovereignty
and its previously unenviable position as the “dirty man of Europe” managed in one the earliest
treaties (the Maastricht Treaty) to introduce the principle of subsidiarity. The British
Task A07-1
China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 13
Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013
government and others have hereafter frequently invoked the subsidiarity principle against
Community environmental legislative proposals2.
The subsidiarity principle has been adopted as a concept which means that legislative
initiatives as far as possible are left for implementation by the national member states. The
distribution of competencies between the Commission and the member states are today often
referred to as “pool of sovereignty” That is especially the case for EU environmental legislation
including EU water management.
The Water Framework Directive (WFD), which for the last 13 years has been the stabilising
backbone of water management in the EU is an excellent example. It is continuously under
implementation in 29 member states and it is clear how to implement it, taking into account a
major number of comprehensive guidance document describing how to do it. But the period for
timely implementation of the Directive was set to approximately 15 years. Apparently at least 5
years more are needed.
Some of the basic activities the WFD are concerned with:
Appointing appropriate competent river basin authorities
Identification and description of river basins
Transposition of legislation
Adoption of objectives and inter-calibrated standards
Provision of river basin management plans
Monitoring
Permitting
Enforcement
But in general terms the WFD asks three conceptual questions to be answered for river basins
over a period of time:
What is the present situation regarding legislation, status on water quality,
resources and pressures from society? It means that a base-line description
of river basins shall be prepared
Where do we want to go and what shall be achieved in the future? It means that
a plan and objectives to be achieved shall be prepared taking the future
development of society into account
How do we reach the planned objectives and expected achievements? It
means that a programme of measures, budgets for implementation and
enforcement activities shall be prepared.
2 Rewriting from “Sovereignty and subsidiarity in EU environmental Policy”. Jonathan Golub. Political studies, 1996, XLIV pp.
686-703
Task A07-1
China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 14
Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013
Even if it is clear, what to do, then the subsidiarity principle makes the national approaches on
implementation of the WFD a patchwork of individual solutions and it is not possible to present
an unanimously organisation model for water management in EU – only for the processing. On
the other hand the management approach based on subsidiarity applied in EU might be an
inspiration in other countries like China with a complex set up of institutions and authorities
with conflicting competences and interests.
2.3 Competent Authority Role
The implementation of European directives requires that a ‘competent body’ or competent
bodies’ are nominated in each Member State that are capable and competent to implement
the EU Directives correctly. This competent body is responsible or taking the lead and
ensuring that the directive is implemented, working with other partners as required.
For most EU directives ideally one competent body is nominated, but for some complex
directives such as the WFD a number of bodies may be nominated. Across Europe there are a
number of bodies that take the lead on water resource protection. They have a range of
functions and constitutions, mostly the result of history, political expedience and
environmental focus of each Member State. Few have a totally logical constitution and are
negotiated and developed over time. In the UK the Environment Agency is the sole competent
authority for most environmental directives, including the WFD. In Denmark the Environment
Agency is responsible for preparing River Basin Management plans, but the competent
authority role is more complex and is spread across a number of organisations. Their role is
well defined and understood.
An overall approach for public state administration in many EU countries relies on a tripartite
hierarchic delegation of responsibilities among authorities where the hierarchy shall ensure
and control that conflicting activities of administration may arise. Taking into account a lot of
exemptions it can be said that
Provision of national legislation and programmes shall be provided only by
governments and ministries
Provision of plans and programmes shall be prepared by regional authorities
Operation and implementation of regional plans and programmes (of
measures) shall be done by tertiary community authorities
Expressed in more legal terms and with specific regard to implementation of the WFD it can be
said that River Basin Districts are the main units for management of river basins as specified in
Article 3.1 for which regional competent River Basin Authorities need to be identified for each
national River Basin Districts as described in Article 3.2 and as well for shared international
River Basin Districts as described in Article 3.3. Through Article 3.4 and Article 3.5 there
is a requirement to co-ordinate the actions (nationally and internationally) to
Task A07-1
China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 15
Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013
achieve the planned environmental objectives established by the Article 4 through
implementation of the planned Programme of Measures in accordance with requirements of
Article 11. The extent of allocation of responsibilities to tertiary community authorities to
implement and later to operate the programme of measures depend very much on locally
generated tax revenue, income from water tariffs and state subsidies.
Taking the overall approach for a tripartite delegation of responsibilities, the history behind
institutions and the principle of subsidiarity into account the nomination of competent river
basin authorities has in many countries been distributed among existing authorities already
involved in national water management. In other countries new specific river basin authorities
have been introduced. The complexity of approaches in selected countries will be described in
the following section.
2.4 River basin management in Europe
Designation of River Basin Districts is one of the core aspects of the integrated river basin
management approach delineating the geographical extent for the co-ordination and
management of water resources. The principle of holistic water management at the catchment
level is based on hydrologic boundaries and only seldom coherent with administrative
boundaries of existing authorities. In response to the designation of River Basin Districts new
competent authorities had to be appointed for each District including the part of any
international River Basin District lying within their territory.
128 River Basin Districts have been specified in EU3 for implementation of the WFD. 49 of
them are international and shared either between two or several EU states or non-member
states bordering EU. The institutional arrangements with regard to assigning competent River
Basin Authorities have been correspondingly overwhelming and have created a broad specter
of interplay between new and existing institutions all over EU.
Some Member States have adapted their water administrations to ensure better
implementation of the WFD. That is for instance the case in Bulgaria, the Czech Republic,
Estonia, Luxembourg, Latvia and Sweden. They have established new authorities as a result
of the WFD. However, in the vast majority of cases there has been no adaptation of existing
structures to support the implementation of the Directive.
3 Source: WISE
Task A07-1
China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 16
Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013
From 112 River Basin Management Plans4 it can be seen that one single authority is
responsible for the implementation of all WFD activities in 23 River Basin Districts Most often
this main authority is the Ministry of Environment.
New River Basin District Authorities have been established for the purposes of the WFD in
some member states, such as in e.g. Sweden, the Czech Republic and Bulgaria.
Competences are split between different authorities with responsibilities on different water
management related issues in 84 River basin Management Plans or 20 Member States.
Examples of such divisions are established between regional authorities in Poland, and if
federal states are considered as regional authorities, then it is also the case in Germany and
Belgium.
In 12 out of 112 cases different authorities are responsible for specific water categories, most
commonly for coastal waters versus inland waters, but in some cases there are also different
authorities for groundwater compared to surface waters.
It is often the case that one competent authority (whether national, regional, or basin specific)
is responsible for core water management issues (water supply, waste water treatment,
permitting, reporting, spatial planning, nature conservation, agriculture, navigation, energy
and fisheries). This approach shall be seen in the context that the full implementation of the
WFD and provision of programme of measures shall encompass a concurrent implementation
of 11 related water management Directives on:
Urban waste-water treatment (UWWT)
Drinking water
Nitrates
Sewage sludge
Habitats
Bathing water
Birds
Major accidents
Environmental impact assessment
Plant protection products
Integrated pollution prevention control
How competencies for concurrent implementation of water directives are distributed vary
between member states.
4 COM (2012) 670 final. Commission staff working document on the implementation of the Water Framework Directive
(2000/60/EC)
Task A07-1
China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 17
Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013
2.5 Enforcement and control
Article 11.3 (WFD) sets out a number of basic WFD water related measures to be controlled.
These parameters must be reviewed periodically so that the environmental objectives can be
reached (Article 11.5). The governance mechanisms for different types of water related
permits are very much based on different mechanisms in the different Member States.
A basic concept for control and regulation of permits is based on monitoring in accordance
with specification of permits and as required to assessing the status of the environment.
Nevertheless issuing of permits and monitoring is not always done by the same authority and
sometimes the two activities are distributed among institutions at different levels of
administration as shown in figure 2.5.1
Figure 2.5.1: Division of responsibility for monitoring as well as water related permits at
different levels of administration. (By numbers of Member States)
Where more than one authority is responsible for issuing permits, there are usually
co-ordination mechanisms in place.
Member States are also required to determine penalties applicable to breaches of the WFD
as written into national laws, that are effective, proportionate and dissuasive (WFD Article 23).
Member States have a variety of approaches in organizing enforcement activities across their
territories. Only a few countries have organized enforcement activities along river basin
scales. The few examples are Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania and Spain, where administrative
bodies at RBD or sub-basin level have enforcement powers. In most EU countries the same
administrative authorities are responsible for enforcement of permits across different sectors
Task A07-1
China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 18
Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013
though some differences are seen for IPPC permits. In other cases there are differences
depending on the type of activity or the scale of the activity.
The local and regional authorities play a large role in the enforcement of water permits and in
several Member States the enforcement authority is also the permitting authority. A number of
Member States have specific environmental inspectorates, and the police forces may be an
additional enforcement institution as for instance in Denmark.
There is no ‘one-size-fits-all’ solution be found on permitting and control in EU member states.
The subsidiarity principle is the main driver for establishing the relevant national institutional
set-up.
2.6 International co-ordination and co-operation
The complexity in distribution of management responsibilities within the water sector is further
underlined by the obligation to make river basin management plans for international river
basins. 60% of the EU territory is covered by international river basins, and 55 of the 112
RBDs are considered international. An overview of the existing RBDs in EU is shown in Figure
2.6.1. The pink colored districts refer to international districts shared between several states,
while the light-green colored areas refer to national RBDs. It can immediately be seen that the
international RBDs dominate the area of EU.
Member States 'shall ensure co-ordination with a view of producing a single RBMP' when the
RBDs are international. Where a third country shares a river basin with an EU Member State5,
the Member State “shall endeavour to produce” such a plan (WFD Article 13). ‘For
international river basin districts the Member States concerned shall together ensure this
co-ordination’ (WFD Article 3.4).
5 The UNECE Water Convention: Convention on the Protection and Use of Transboundary Watercourses and International
Lakes
Task A07-1
China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 19
Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013
Figure 2.6.1. Map of national and international river basin districts in EU
Ver. 29. October 20126
International RBMPs have been adopted in catchments like the larger Danube, Rhine, Elbe,
Scheldt, Odra, Meuse, Ems basins but also in smaller basins shared by the UK and Ireland.
Co-operation is generally less developed in smaller trans-boundary catchments where there is
no co-ordinating body or agreements in place.
In some international river basins there has been extensive co-operation for many years, such
as in the Odra7, the Elbe8, and in the Rhine9, where there has been important progress on
6 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/facts_figures/index_en.htm
7 Odra Convention, ICPO. In force 1996. Signed by Czech Republic, Germany and Poland
Task A07-1
China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 20
Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013
pollution reduction, and the establishment of hydromorphological measures that has, for
instance, led to salmon once again being reintroduced. Most international river conventions
have since they were acceded been amended to fulfil the role of co-ordination of the
implementation of the WFD, for instance in the Danube basin. Danube basin is the most
international District in the world as it covers 19 countries. The Danube Convention,
International Commission on the Protection of the Danube River (ICPDR), was taken into
force in 1998 and has today 15 contracting parties: Austria, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Bulgaria,
Croatia, Czech Republic, Germany, Hungary, Moldova, Montenegro, Romania, Slovakia,
Serbia, Slovenia, Ukraine and the European Commission. Management of Danube basin is
given much intention in EU in consequence of the extension of the area and the number of
stakeholder countries. Management of the basin is not only directed towards clean water but
also the use of water as a resource. In addition coordination is about keeping the river open for
navigation. Earlier the lack of cooperation on these issues caused severe conflicts, as several
of the countries within the basin are land locked.
Of the 112 RBMPs which have been prepared, 66 RBMPs were reported as ‘international’ with
river basins shared between Member States or Member States and third countries and
co-ordination has taken place on a number of specific requirements of the WFD Directive. For
instance measures related to key trans-boundary water management issues like river
continuity, nutrient reduction and chemical pollution are indicated as being coordinated in
around 40% of the RBMPs. 40% of the international RBMPs also indicate that there are
trans-boundary monitoring programmes for shared rivers and just over 20% for shared
groundwater. The relatively high percentage of RBMPs reporting co-operation on public
participation and co-ordination is due to the outreach and consultation activities undertaken by
the International River Commissions such as the International Commission on the Protection
of the Danube River (ICPDR).
2.7 Best practice on water management in EU
Water management in EU has in the preceding sections been described based on a statistical
cross country approach deduced from 112 RBMPs prepared by 29 member states over a 13
year period.
Emphasis has been made on some core elements considered to be essential for a successful
implementation of the WFD. The description shows a patchwork of individual, national
solutions on how to implement legislation, how to delegate responsibilities as competent
authorities among institutions, how to organise enforcement and control functions among
institutions and how to organise co-ordination and co-operation in international river basins.
8 Elbe Convention, ICPE, In force 1992, Signed by Czech Republic and Germany
9 Rhine Convention, ICPR. In force 2003. Signed by Schweiz, Germany, Luxembourg and Netherland
Task A07-1
China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 21
Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013
The variability of national practices on implementation of the WFD raises the question: What
are the best practices? Right now there are no criteria for evaluating best practises except
those which most efficiently implement the objectives on at least good water status in water
bodies in accordance with the national RBM planning.
To understand this it is a precondition to know how European legislation is created. EU is still
more or less an association of independent countries where most institutions have a long story
and where administrating organisations have built up a tradition on environmental
administration practise in accordance with national needs. EU legislation cannot for political
reasons change the national sovereignty of member states on that. Instead the principle of
subsidiarity has been adopted and must be respected by the EU Commission - meaning that
decisions which only are of national importance shall be made by the national states. That is
the case regarding the institutional set-up and administration practises in national member
states for implementation of the WFD and accordingly it is not possible to present an
unanimously organisation model for water management in EU.
Actually, implementation of the requirements of the WFD is progressing steadily all over
Europe and if organisation models on water management are described for each country it will
turn out that an institutional set-up and administration practises are in place in most countries
to handle the legal requirements. What to be done is clear. It is only the way it is done, that
differs.
2.8 Environmental Protection Agencies and Equivalent
Across Europe there are a number of bodies that take the lead on water resource protection.
The have a range of functions and constitutions, mostly the result of history, political
expedience and environmental focus of each Member State. Few have a totally logical
constitution and their structure and function has been negotiated and developed over time.
2.8.1 Breadth of function
Some agencies have a narrow function and may only have responsibilities for water. Others
have wide functionality and may be closely aligned with local authorities. Others may have
duties such as forestry, landscape and heritage added to the environmental portfolio.
Some have national responsibilities and others may be more federal based. The US EPA
and the devolved State jurisdictions are the classic example.
Some agencies are predominantly policy and strategy based, whereas others have significant
operational roles. The Environment Agency in the UK has approximately 2000 water
resources and pollution control staff. It also holds one of the largest remaining directly
employed labour forces in the UK public sector. This is used for its flood defence role,
Task A07-1
China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 22
Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013
including responsibilities ranging from the Thames Flood Barrier control and maintenance, to
clearing out small rivers and ditches to reduce flooding, but importantly it provides the
capability to deal with flooding and other environmentally damaging events, including pollution
incident management
2.8.2 Air, Land and Water
Many agencies have wider environmental responsibilities and the current trend is for
Environment Agencies or Environment Protection Agencies to take the overview of air, land
water and waste protection and regulation. The Rio Earth Summit in 1992 brought a critical
change in thinking and the issues of sustainability and the Bruntland Report10 definitions were
brought into mainstream thinking. Influenced by this, the UK created the Environment
Agency in 1995, with responsibilities for air, land, water and waste.
Permitting practice for water abstraction and water quality have broadly remained separate
functions, within an integrated approach to water management. Permit reviews take place on
a risk basis, if changes to statutory objectives (EU or UK) require a change, or if permit holders
request a review or change.
For large installations the Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC) regime has
allowed for integrated ‘installation’ based permit review, taking into account Best Available
Technology (BAT) approaches, for Air, Land and Water to be introduced according to the PPC
Regulations11.
The UK Environment Agency is currently introducing a new Environmental Permitting12
regime which will progressively bring air, land and water permitting activity into one common
format.
2.8.3 The Case for Independent Water Regulation
There is a strong case for water and environmental regulation to be independent of political
intervention. This would include the setting of standards in the water environment, monitoring,
permitting and reporting. The case can be made that water is too important to leave to
emotive interventions from government and politicians, however this is rarely achieved in
practice.
Many Environment Agencies and water regulatory organisations are part of government and
for example the Danish EPA is directly part of the Department of the Environment. This is
10
Our Common Future, also known as the Brundtland Report, from the United Nations World Commission on Environment and
Development (WCED), 1987
11 The Pollution Prevention and Control (England and Wales) Regulations 2000
12 The Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2010
Task A07-1
China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 23
Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013
common in many countries and allows water issues to be resolved within and across
government departments. But it can be influenced by political intervention.
In the UK, the Environment Agency has been set up to be ‘independent’ from government
departments to limit political intervention. One of its primary responsibilities is to ‘report on
the state of the environment’ and to provide ‘independent’ advice to Ministers on
environmental issues. Ministers are consulted on policy issues and ultimately set
environmental objectives on advice from the Agency. The Environment Agency then
‘independently’ sets permit limits to ensure that the objectives are met. However, this not a
pure model and independence is limited. The Governing Board is appointed by Ministers and
Environment Agency requires some direct financial support from government.
2.8.4 Funding
There are a number of funding models ranging from full state funding to various levels of cost
recovery to allow the agencies to undertake their functions.
Following the principle of ‘polluter pays’, many agencies attain full cost recovery for their work
related to permitting, including administration, monitoring, reporting and enforcement. In
some cases this is used to gain revenue for wider water resource management activities,
including water resource development, capital investment in water management infrastructure
and research and development.
The case has also been made that, charging beyond cost recovery constitutes a tax on
pollution, raising other complications including pressure on industry. However, the French
Agence de l'eau operates a system of reallocation of permit charges to assist with water
infrastructure improvement within river basins in France. Similar arrangements are seen in
the use of Landfill Tax in the UK, with money being reallocated to development of new landfill
sites, minimising the impact of old sites and improving the local environment in the vicinity.
2.9 UK Environment Agency
In the UK the Environment Agency has the primary duty to protect and improve the
environment, and to promote sustainable development. It has a central role in delivering the
environmental priorities of central government. The Environment Act 1995,
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1995/25/contents/enacted created an integrated
Environment Agency with responsibilities for air land and water, and waste; from the previous
National Rivers Authority with sole responsibility for water, and other partners
From the Environment Act the :
Principal aim and objectives of the Agency
Task A07-1
China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 24
Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013
(1)It shall be the principal aim of the Agency in discharging its functions so to protect or enhance the
environment, taken as a whole, so as to make the contribution towards attaining the objective of
achieving sustainable development
The Environment Agency is the UK government’s agent to deliver environmental protection
and to enact UK and European water and environmental legislation. The Environment
Agency is the UK Competent Authority for the delivery of most of the EU Directives, including
the Water Framework Directive. In this role it takes the lead in implementing directives and
works with others to ensure the correct outcomes.
It outlines its approach to environmental protection in its corporate plan which can be found at
:- http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/aboutus/131960.aspx
The budget for the Environment Agency in 2012 was £1.2 billion and Figure 2.9.1 provides a
breakdown. In principle the agency derives its water funding from two principal streams,
Charge income from water quality and water resource licences, on a cost recovery basis only.
This is linked to the polluter pays principle. The rest is derived from ‘Gant in Aid’ from its
sponsoring department DEFRA. The grant in aid element generally covers the ‘public good’
requirement for monitoring the state of the environment and elements of cost that cannot be
attributed to the polluters. There is no element of charging for water, or taxation in this
funding base.
It should be noted that the Flood Risk element distorts the expenditure profile of the UK
Environment Agency. This is heavily biased towards capital flood defence construction
projects which are largely government funded through grant in aid. Other contributions come
from local authorities and charging.
Task A07-1
China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 25
Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013
Figure 2.9.1 Environment Agency Funding 2012
2.10 IMPEL Network - best practice across EU regulators
IMPEL http://impel.eu/ is the European Union Network for the Implementation and
Enforcement of Environmental Law (IMPEL). It is an international non-profit association of the
environmental authorities of the European Union Member States, acceding and candidate
countries of the EU, EEA and EFTA countries.
This is an extract from its web site ;
The association is registered in Belgium and both its legal seat and its Secretariat are in
Bruxelles, Belgium. Currently IMPEL has 47 members from 33 countries including all EU
Member States, Croatia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkey, Iceland,
Switzerland and Norway.
IMPEL was set up in 1992 as an informal Network of European regulators and authorities
concerned with the implementation and enforcement of environmental law. The Network’s
objective is to create the necessary impetus in the European Union to make progress on
ensuring a more effective application of environmental legislation. The core of the IMPEL
Task A07-1
China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 26
Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013
activities concerns awareness raising, capacity building, peer review, exchange of information
and experiences on implementation, international enforcement collaboration as well as
promoting and supporting the practicability and enforceability of European environmental
legislation. The Association undertakes its activities primarily within a project structure.
IMPEL has developed into a considerable, widely known organisation, being mentioned in a
number of EU legislative and policy documents, e.g. the Decision No 1600/2002/EC of the
European Parliament and of the Council of 22 July 2002 laying down the Sixth Community
Environment Action Programme 6th EU Environment Action Programme, the
Recommendation 2001/331/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 April 2001
providing for minimum criteria for environmental inspections in the Member States
(RMCEI), the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council,
the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on
implementing European Community Environmental Law and the European Commission
Impact Assessment Guidelines.
2.11 European Environment Agency
The European Environment Agency (EEA) is an agency of the European Union. Its task is to
provide sound, independent information on the environment. It provides a major information
source for those involved in developing, adopting, implementing and evaluating environmental
policy, and also for the general public. Currently, the EEA has 33 member countries.
In general The EEA is not engaged in Member State regulatory issues or permitting, however,
it is seen as a critical component necessary for environmental management and to judge the
effectiveness and outcomes of regulation. In this way it enables new issues and risks to be
identified which may require regulatory action across the EU. It also allows an independent
reporting mechanism and comparisons to be made across Member States.
EEA's mandate is:
To help the Community and member countries make informed decisions about
improving the environment, integrating environmental considerations into
economic policies and moving towards sustainability
To coordinate the European environment information and observation network
(Eionet)
Its main clients are the European Union institutions — the European Commission, the
European Parliament, the Council — and our member countries. In addition to this central
group of European policy actors, we also serve other EU institutions such as the Economic
and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions.
Task A07-1
China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 27
Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013
The business community, academia, non-governmental organisations and other parts of civil
society are also important users of our information. We try to achieve two-way communication
with our clients in order to correctly identify their information needs, and make sure that the
information provided is understood and taken up by them.
The regulation establishing the EEA was adopted by the European Union in 1990. It came into
force in late 1993 immediately after the decision was taken to locate the EEA in Copenhagen.
Work started in earnest in 1994. The regulation also established the European environment
information and observation network (Eionet).
Task A07-1
China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 28
Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013
3 Setting Environmental Standards and Environmental Monitoring
3.1 River Basin Planning
Water permitting needs to be seen as a fundamental element of a comprehensive river basin
planning process. The need for a permit, and the standards in the permit, must to reflect the
objectives set in the water body impacted.
This is usually done via a river basin planning review and the EU Water Framework Directive
(WFD planning cycle is an example of this. The WFD lays down a six year process for
undertaking this that has been developed and endorsed across the EU. Figure 3.1.1
provides a summary the process developed for the WFD to set Environmental Objectives, to
design the measures needed, including the permit standards. This leads to the development
of an improvement programme, known as the ‘programme of measures’ in the WFD.
Task A07-1
China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 29
Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013
Figure 3.1.1 Relationship between river basin planning, monitoring and the programmes of
measures Source - Scottish Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA), 2002, Future for Scotland’s Waters
The permit standards are calculated from river basin modelling exercises, which through mass
balance calculations can assess options and scenarios for achieving objectives in the most
cost effective way. Once provisional permit standards have been calculated an improvement
programme (in the EUWFD this is known as the Programme of Measures) can be developed.
It would be usual for industry to be given early knowledge of any improvements needed and
notice of new permit standards. Three to five years is often considered reasonable. New
permits may then be issued, often with a timescale for attaining the new standards.
The WFD process is risk based and takes into account the pressures and impacts on a river
basin. The main aim of the planning process is to set objectives in all water bodies via a
consultative process. Ultimately objectives are set and endorsed by Member States, In the
UK, the Environment Agency as the Competent Authority manages the process and advises
Ministers. Ultimately Ministers set the water quality objectives, which in terms of the WFD are
normally set at Good Status, or may be derogated after economic and societal tests.
It is these objectives that drive investment and infrastructure costs within the river basin plan.
This is why in the UK Ministers make this informed decision, but in a political context. Ministers
can also influence timescales for achievement and the options within a catchment to achieve
these.
Task A07-1
China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 30
Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013
3.2 The Objectives and Water Standards
The river objectives can take a number of forms. In the EU these tended to be ‘use based’
standards related to anthropogenic exploitation. For example,
Class 1 High = Water supply with minimum treatment, highland river, salmonid fisheries
Class 2 Good = Water supply with primary treatment, salmonid Fisheries
Class 3 Medium = Water supply with full treatment, lowland river, coarse fishery, high
amenity
Class 4 Poor = Water supply with advanced treatment, intermittent coarse fishery
Class 5 Bad = Not suitable for public water supply, no nuisance.
Associated with these there would be predominantly chemical standards relating to mostly
sanitary determinants, such as BOD or COD, suspended solids and ammonia. These were
progressively tightened, often in response to EU Directives, such as the Drinking Water
Abstraction Directive (75/440/EEC) and the Freshwater Fish Directive (78/659/EEC). The
Dangerous Substances Directive, (76/464) added parameters for persistent and dangerous
substances, such as mercury, cadmium and DDT.
Similar standards have been developed relating to river flow, especially minimum flows and
‘hands off flow’. It is these that determine water abstraction from rivers, especially in low flow
periods. These are often related to environmental flow regimes.
China has similar standards today in the form of the Water Functional Zones and the
implementation of the Three Red Lines Policy – see Section 5 below
The EUWFD introduced ecological objectives into the regulatory process, raising the
standards in many waters. These objectives are set on a five class system shown in Figure
3.2.1 below
Task A07-1
China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 31
Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013
Figure 3.2.1 Overview of the EUWFD Classes
Behind the objectives a suite of chemical and flow ‘surrogate’ standards have been developed
following significant and on-going research programmes across the EU. These allow the
numbers needed to calculate permit standards in abstraction and discharge activities.
It should be noted that the aim of the Directive is to achieve Good Status. For this reason
accurate determination of the good to moderate boundary is essential as this drives permit
standards and infrastructure costs. The Commission has recognised this and as gone to
great lengths to ensure equality of standards across the Member States and has undertaken
the intercalibration exercise shown on the figure.
3.3 Monitoring
Comprehensive and well-designed monitoring programmes are an essential part of water
planning and regulation, but the detail is beyond the scope of this study. Monitoring
programmes usually evolve and are refined from previous practice and knowledge of water
catchments. Programmes must be designed to provide the evidence to support decision
making and are increasingly risk based.
The monitoring of rivers, lakes and ground waters needs to be linked to monitoring of
permitted abstraction discharges and increasingly these elements are optimised to make
effective use of resources.
Task A07-1
China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 32
Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013
The EUWFD provides a framework for this and the Common Implementation Strategy
Guidance Document No. 7 on Monitoring has been developed to ensure continuity of
monitoring across the EU Member States
https://circabc.europa.eu/faces/jsp/extension/wai/navigation/container.jsp
Box 1 is an extract from the UK Environment Agency monitoring programme.
BOX 1 Environment Agency UK WFD Monitoring
Monitoring will be required to classify water bodies, improve risk assessments and programmes of
measures.
The monitoring programme will cover all surface waters, groundwaters, groundwater dependant wetlands
and protected areas.
For each water body we will monitor a range of parameters including:
biology (phytoplankton, diatoms, macrophytes, invertebrates and fish)
hydromorphology
physico-chemical (including pollutants)
priority and priority-hazardous substances.
Data from the monitoring programme will be used in all stages of the river basin planning cycle to:
classify all waterbodies according to their ecological and chemical status
refine the risk assessments to improve our understanding of possible threats to the environment
drive programmes of measures to identify why a waterbody is failing its objective and determine
what action is needed.
Our WFD monitoring programme was reported to the European Commission through the Water Information
System for Europe (WISE) website in March 2007.
Under the Water Framework Directive, surveillance, operational and investigative monitoring techniques are
required. We have also introduced additional forms of monitoring to meet the needs of the Directive.
surveillance - to identify long term changes, trends, and inform future monitoring networks. In
these waterbodies we will undertake the full range of monitoring. We expect this network of
surveillance sites to remain fixed
operational - to help classify water bodies which are at risk of failing to meet objectives. The
monitoring in these waterbodies is tailored to assess the pressures and risks identified. The
coverage of operational monitoring will change over time
investigative - to assess why a waterbody is failing to achieve its objectives and decide what
action is needed. The investigative programme will be designed when we have the initial results
from the operational and surveillance monitoring
groundwater monitoring - to determine the quantitative status of groundwater bodies
protected area monitoring - will be carried out in surface and ground waters used for the
abstraction of drinking water; habitat and species protection areas designated under the Habitats
Directive, or any other protected area established by EU legislation. Monitoring already established
for these reasons will be incorporated into operational programmes
Task A07-1
China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 33
Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013
Task A07-1
China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 34
Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013
4 EU/ UK Approach to Water Permitting
In this section we will examine the key principles of water permitting using the UK as the
primary example. In Section 5 elements of the Danish system are detailed in order to show
that although the principles are the same, different approaches can be taken to achieve
common outcomes in terms of water resources.
This section focusses on the single issue water abstraction and water quality permitting
systems. Complex installations are permitted under the PPC Directive regime where air, land
water and waste issues are considered in a single permit. More information on this is
covered in the Danish approach in Section 5.
In the UK, permitting systems are converging towards a common approach and a new
Environmental Permitting framework is being introduced progressively in the UK. This is
referenced in Section 4.11
4.1 Water Framework Directive
The EU water directives underpin much of the water resource protection regulation activity
across Europe. Member States can choose how they implement this provided the minimum
requirements are met. Permitting is one of the core tools used to ensure compliance with
EU and domestic standards.
The main aim of EU water policy is to ensure that throughout the EU a sufficient quantity of
good quality water is available for people’s needs and for the environment. Since the 1970s,
through a variety of measures, the EU has worked hard to create an effective and coherent
water policy.
In 2000 the Water Framework Directive (WFD) established a legal basis to protect and
restore clean water across Europe and ensure its long-term, sustainable use. The general
objective of the WFD is to get all water — for example, lakes, rivers, streams and
groundwater aquifers — into a healthy state by 2015.
Task A07-1
China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 35
Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013
4.2 EU Water Blueprint
The water framework directive has been updated and focussed on new water resource
challenges by the EU Water Blueprint 2012. The EU describes the Water Blueprint as
follows:
‘The achievement of EU water policy goals is threatened by a number of old and
emerging challenges, including water pollution, water abstraction for agriculture and
energy production, land use and the impacts of climate change.
The EU’s policy response to these challenges is the forthcoming 2012 Blueprint to
safeguard Europe’s water resources. The overall objective of the Blueprint is to improve
EU water policy to ensure good quality water, in adequate quantities, for all authorised
uses. The Blueprint will encourage a move towards what we call ‘prevention and
preparedness’. It will ensure a sustainable balance between water demand and supply,
taking into account the needs of both people and the natural ecosystems they depend
on.
The Blueprint’s policy recommendations will be based on the results of the following
ongoing assessments.
Analysis of the WFD’s river basin management plans: giving information on
how Member States have improved their water management.
Review of the 2007 policy on water scarcity and drought:
o including water efficiency measures.
o The evolution of water resources:
water’s vulnerability to climate change and man-made pressures such as
urbanisation and land use.
Outcome of the fitness check of EU freshwater policy:
o a gap analysis to identify any uncovered areas and assess the adequacy
of the current framework.
The results of these four reviews, together with other EU studies, will provide knowledge
to help better implementation of EU water policy.
4.3 UK Water Law
The importance of access to water and water rights in the UK has been recognised through
history. It has been so important that significant elements of the UK Common Law framework
have been developed from the need to resolve water issues, particularly the impoundment of
Task A07-1
China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 36
Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013
water and protecting downstream water rights. This was later extended to pollution and
water quality issues, especially during the industrial revolution.
These Common Law water rights have been progressively superseded by Civil Laws based
on Statutes passed by parliament, such as the Water Resources Acts 1991 and the Water Act
2003. However, these Common Law rights to abstract water ‘in perpetuity’ still remain to
some extent, but under the current water scarce situation, these are being progressively
revaluated and removed, usually with compensation payment.
In simplistic terms, the water laws in the UK make it a criminal offence to abstract or impound
water, or to discharge ‘noxious, poisonous or solid matter into controlled waters’.
The permits provide a defence against this ‘primary offence’. Therefore the permit should be
considered as a valuable asset for the operator, protecting him from prosecution, provided he
operates within the conditions set in the permit.
The Environment Agency (or the Scottish Environment Protection Agency in Scotland) is the
nominated government body with a duty to ‘protect and enhance the water environment’. In
undertaking this duty it is empowered to set permits, monitor, enforce and report compliance.
It can also reclaim its costs in undertaking these functions.
An overview and listing of the key water legislation can be found on the Environment Agency
Website at http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/business/142645.aspx
4.4 UK Permits13
In UK the water abstraction and water quality permits have been subject to parallel
development via successive water acts, and largely retain their separation. However UK is
progressively converging these systems and ultimately integrated permits will be issued, on a
site, or installation, basis.
For the purposes of this report water abstraction and water quality permits will be regarded
separately. This is because the majority of permits in force are separate and have been issued
under separate legislation.
It should also be noted that in the UK a narrow definition of Water Resources is used that
tends to be restricted to water quantity, and water abstraction and impoundment. Water
quality or pollution control refers to effluent discharge and water chemistry.
13
The terms permit, licences and consents are used interchangeably in the UK and depend on legislative terminology. Permit or
permitting is becoming the accepted generic term and we will use this throughout this report.
Task A07-1
China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 37
Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013
4.4.1 Water Quantity/Water Resources
The Water Resources Act 1991 as amended by the Water Act 2003 is the core statute
regulating water quantity and water impoundment, in England and Wales
The Water Resources Act 1991
The Water Resources Act 1991 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1991/57/contents
Is the primary statutory controlling statute for the abstraction and impounding of water. It
requires a licence to carry out these activities, although some activities are exempt.
From the Act there absolute restrictions on the abstraction of water unless a licence or permit
is in place:-
Restrictions on abstraction
(1)Subject to the following provisions of this Chapter and to any drought order under Chapter III of this
Part, no person shall—
(a) abstract water from any source of supply; or
(b) cause or permit any other person so to abstract any water,
except in pursuance of a licence under this Chapter granted by the Authority and in accordance
with the provisions of that licence.
The Water Resources Act also makes provision for the licence application process and the granting and
administration of those licences, including appeal provisions to the Secretary of State.
Water Act 2003
The Water Act 2003 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/37/contents was developed in
response to the droughts of the 1990’s and amends the Water Resources Act 1991. A
government review showed that existing legislation did not enable adequate management of
water resources and protection of the environment under current pressures.
The Environment Agency highlights the main changes brought by the 2003 Act :-
‘The 2003 Act will change the licensing system in six key areas:
all small abstractions, generally under 20 cubic metres per day (m3/d), will not need a licence;
dewatering of mines, quarries and engineering works, water transfers into canals and internal
drainage districts, use of water for trickle irrigation and abstractions in some areas which are
currently exempt will now need a licence to make sure that they are managed appropriately and
that any impact on the environment can be dealt with;
Task A07-1
China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 38
Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013
administration for making applications, transferring and renewing licences will be made simpler.
This will also reduce barriers to the trading of water rights;
_ the status of licences has changed significantly, as all abstractors now have a responsibility not to
let their abstraction cause damage to others. From 2012, the Environment Agency will be able to
amend or take away someone’s permanent licence without compensation if they are causing
serious damage to the environment;
_ there will be an increased focus on water conservation. Water companies will have new duties to
conserve water and all public bodies will need to consider how to conserve water supplied to
premises.
The Government has new responsibilities for monitoring and reporting progress in this area;
water companies will need to develop and publish water resources management and drought plans.
The Environment Agency will be able to encourage transfer of water resources between water
companies and recover costs associated with drought orders and permits.’
With regards to the current situation in China these changes are interesting. Firstly they are a
response to increasing water security concerns and allow the Environment Agency to remove
or amend licences where there is environmental damage, overcoming the Common Law rights
issue, highlighted above. It also increases the emphasis on water efficiency and water loss
through irrigation. It also allows for the simplification of the application process and the
deregulation of small abstractions (under 20m3 per day).
4.4.2 Water Quality
This is also regulated by the Water Resources Act 1991, Section III
From the Act, it is an Offence to pollute controlled waters :
Offences of polluting controlled waters
(1) A person contravenes this section if he causes or knowingly permits any poisonous, noxious or
polluting matter or any solid waste matter to enter any controlled waters.
However the permit (or consent) provides a defence
Defence to principal offences in respect of authorised discharges
(1)Subject to the following provisions of this section, a person shall not be guilty of an offence under
section 85 above in respect of the entry of any matter into any waters or any discharge if the entry
occurs or the discharge is made under and in accordance with, or as a result of any act or omission
under and in accordance with—
(a)a consent given under this Chapter
4.5 Permit application process
Task A07-1
China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 39
Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013
Permit applications for water abstraction and water discharge are still separate in the uk and
the two processes are outlined below
4.5.1 Abstraction Permit or Licence
The following figure provides an overview of the UK water abstraction permit application
process. Information required by abstractors can be accessed from the Environment Agency
Web site at http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/business/topics/water/32034.aspx
Applications are normally applied for via an electronic process, however pre-application
discussions with Environment Agency permitting staff are encouraged for all significant
abstractions.
Figure 4.5.1 provides an overview of this Abstraction Licence Application process
Figure 4.5.1 Applying for and Abstraction Licence
4.5.2 Discharge permit process UK
This is similar in principle to the abstraction permit application process and is outlined in Figure
4.5.2 below. Again this is largely an electronic application in the first instance.
Task A07-1
China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 40
Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013
Figure 4.5.2 The Discharge Permitting Process
4.6 Permit application forms
These forms are available on line or can be downloaded and completed manually.
An example application form can be found on
http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/business/topics/water/118574.aspx
Figure 4.6.1 shows the front page
Task A07-1
China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 41
Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013
Figure 4.6.1 Application form for an Abstraction Permit
The forms reflect the legislation and should allow the issuing authority to assess and make a
decision.
The forms themselves should be fit for purpose and only require information directly required
to make the decision.
Considerable attention has been made to make these forms as clear and as useable as
possible.
4.7 Permit format and examples
Examples of permits from UK, Denmark, Germany, France and Netherlands will be included in
an electronic annex to this report. They can be large and complicated documents. They will
be available on-line via the CEWP website, linked to this report.
4.7.1 Current UK Permit
Figures 4.7.1 and 4.7.2 show pictures of UK Abstraction and discharge permits. UK permits
are considered to show some of the principles that must be considered when developing and
issuing permits.
The permits themselves are essential legal documents, but in many respects the permit
documents are not particularly interesting. They reflect the legislation under which they are
Task A07-1
China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 42
Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013
issued and should be clear and understandable to the permit holder, the inspector and the
public. Many of the permits were issued some time ago and the original documents may be
30 years old. The tendency in the UK is to review and update conditions and only consolidate
with new consents very occasionally. There may be a series of variations and updates which
are appended to the original permit.
Simplistically the permits contain
Issuing Authority – Usually Environment Agency in UK
Legislation under which they are issued
Unique permit number
Name and address of Permit holder
Description of operation/installation
Position of Site/installation
Permit conditions, including monitoring provision
Map and position of discharge and monitoring point
Authorising signature
The conditions in the permit are critical because these are the legal minimum
requirements that the operator must adhere to. These should be set to protect the
environment and to meet the objectives in the water body.
In the UK the permits are placed on the public register and can be accessed by the public on
demand (usually for a small administrative fee).
Figures 4.7.1 and 4.7.2 UK Abstraction and Discharge permits
4.8 Permit conditions
The setting of clear and enforceable conditions in permits is the most critical element of the
process. Conditions relating to water abstraction volume, time and place, or discharge quality
elements must reflect the needs and risks of the water resource impacted. These numbers
need to be evidence based and are usually calculated by modelling exercises, but refined and
Task A07-1
China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 43
Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013
negotiated by skilled water planners. It is these numbers that provide protection the water
resource and ensure improvement to water security and the environment.
Monitoring information from the water resource and from the abstraction or discharge quality is
essential to undertake these calculations. The amount of monitoring information determines
the certainty that the level of protection will be achieved and the models are only as good as
the data that is input to them.
The EU WFD allows for an optimisation of approaches to setting these numbers to take into
account the following mechanisms.
Environmental Quality Objective – permits set to meet Environmental Quality
Standards
Emission Control Approach utilising – Best Available Technology (BAT)
o This is used for large installations governed under the PPC Directive
No Deterioration
All of these in combination = Combined Approach developed in the WFD
Water resource improvement programmes are often driven by the progressive tightening of
permit conditions. Transitional permit conditions can be added to permits. An example
might be
Normalise/legalise current operations and achievement
Set new conditions with timescale for achievement
Say 3-5 years to install new infrastructure
Reduce say 50% load or x% abstraction reduction by XXXX
Permit conditions are usually set as a statistic – eg 95%ile compliance – or mode or median
conditions. This allows for the normal variability of treatment process and can allow
proportionate compliance assessment, whilst avoiding overzealous enforcement.
4.9 Monitoring, inspection and compliance assessment
4.9.1 Monitoring and inspection terminology
Most regulators utilise self-monitoring14 and self-reporting regimes by operators to monitor
and report performance of abstractions and discharges.
14
The terminology is critical here, this is not Self-Regulation. Self-regulation implies that operators will monitor, assess, report
and enforce. Few industries successfully enforce or prosecute themselves!
Task A07-1
China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 44
Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013
An example self-monitoring system is outlined in the Figure 4.9.1 from the Environment
Agency, which also highlights the need for quality assurance, in the monitoring methods,
analytical methods and for any instrumentation used.
Figure 4.9.1 Self-monitoring system
4.9.2 Monitoring of permit Conditions – Overview
The Environment Agency publication M18 on Monitoring of Discharges to Water and Sewer,
2012, contains many of the key principles relating to monitoring permit compliance. It is
contained in the electronic annex
‘It describes an overall approach to operator self-monitoring (OSM) for discharges to the
water environment and provides guidance on the selection of analytical methods used
for regulatory purposes. The approach is also applicable to discharges to sewer.
It contains:
quality assurance and quality control requirements
different approaches to sampling
guidance on selection and validation of analytical methods
reporting requirements
an index of common monitoring methods’.
4.9.3 Quality assurance
Effective Management systems are expected. The operator responsible for self-monitoring
must ensure their management system covers all aspects of self-monitoring, including:
Task A07-1
China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 45
Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013
management of self-monitoring
Sampling programme design
sampling procedures
analysis and reporting procedures
staff training
the process of audit and review of sampling and analysis operations
addressing non-conformities
4.9.4 Choice of Sampling Point
Discharge sample points must be at a location that ensures that the sample is truly
representative of the discharge.
The sampling point location should be agreed with EA, documented and clearly and
permanently labelled.
A sampling position in a pipe or channel must be sufficiently far downstream of the last
inflow that mixing of the two streams is complete.
Samples at an outfall should be taken from regions of high turbulence and good
mixing, usually at the centre of the discharge. Solid materials will have little chance to
settle out here.
Samples in channels should be collected away from the sides and bottom of the
channel to avoid contamination of the sample with sediment and biological growths.
When sampling from chambers (for example manholes), avoid contamination of the
sample by the disturbance of deposits from the cover when the cover is lifted and
prevent contamination of the sample from the chamber walls and any bottom deposits.
Samples may also be drawn off from effluent streams at a tap. Care should be taken to
ensure any dead space is flushed out with effluent before the sample is collected.
Sampling staff should be aware that manholes and similar confined spaces are dangerous
and must not be entered unless in accordance with a safe system of work and after
appropriate training.
4.9.5 Access, facilities and services
Access, facilities and services required for sampling will vary depending on the approach
taken to monitoring, and the equipment used. However all require:
a safe means of access to, and a safe place of work at the sampling position
provision of shelter and weatherproofing of equipment
space for the equipment and personnel
essential services, for example, electricity and lighting.
Task A07-1
China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 46
Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013
4.9.6 Sample bottles, storage and transportation.
These details are important and the EA requirement is as follows and can be seen in full in
the Annex
If preservation of samples by refrigeration is required, then during transportation of
samples to the laboratory, including retention time in an automatic sampling device, the
sample storage environment should maintain a temperature of 5±3°C, using ice packs,
refrigerators or other appropriate methods. An organisation carrying out sampling
should have appropriate procedures for demonstrating this. It is recognised that some
time may be required to bring the sample temperature to within this range.
Samples should be transported in sealed containers, which should be regularly cleaned
and disinfected. Examination of the samples should be undertaken as soon as possible
after collection. Every attempt should be made to start the examination within 24 hours
of sample collection. Where logistics do not allow this, samples may be examined up to
48 hours after collection provided they are kept cool (5±3°C) and in the dark.
When samples are stored at a laboratory, method specific storage requirements may
need to be invoked, for example, laboratory storage temperatures may be 1-5°C
4.9.7 Laboratory analysis and choosing a method
Laboratory facilities and analytical and quality assurance methods are a critical part of
regulation. Some small businesses cannot achieve these standards, but they would be
expected to buy in services of the following specified quality. The regulator would also need
equivalent standards and good practice.
The EA guidance extract is here
Standard methods are developed by various national and international organisations. It
has been suggested that choosing measurement methods published by the
organisations listed below will form the foundation for better reliability and
comparability:
standard methods required by relevant EU Directives
CEN standard for the relevant pollutant or parameter
ISO standards
national standards (SCA blue books + BSI)
Task A07-1
China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 47
Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013
alternative methods, such as in house methods, modified methods or test kits,
with prior approval from us. We may also impose extra requirements.
However, the degree of validation detailed in standard methods is variable, especially
with regard to the matrix the method is employed in. Therefore it is extremely important
that the measuring method is fully evaluated to check that it is fit for purpose, and that
the laboratory employing the method is itself able to verify any performance criteria that
may be stated in the appropriate standard or specified by us, for example in an
MCERTS standard. If the sample to be analysed is of a matrix that has not been the
subject of suitable validation tests, then further tests will need to be carried out to
ascertain the suitability of the method. We may require proof of method suitability and
details of how matrix problems were addressed.
4.9.8 Flow measurement
The uncertainties associated with flow measurement can have a significant effect on the
calculation of emission loads. Small fluctuations in flow measurements can lead to large
differences in load calculations.
The Environment Agency have therefore produced two MCERTS standards to cover
the inspection of effluent flow monitoring arrangements including the monitoring
installations and the associated quality assurance systems.
The standards are:
Minimum requirements for the self-monitoring of effluent flow - this specifies our
requirements for permit holders to measure the flow of sewage and/or trade effluent
discharging to controlled waters or public sewer. It also includes the relevant quality
systems and the collection/reporting of monitoring data.
Competency Standard for MCERTS inspectors – effluent flow monitoring – this
specifies the competency standard required for independent technical specialists
who will undertake the assessment process on behalf of the consent holder.
4.10 Permit Charging Systems – Cost Recovery
The Environment Agency is able to cover its costs of administering the permit systems via a
published scheme, agreed by the Minister. Charging is strictly limited to cost recovery only
as any income above this would be seen as a tax on industry, and non-hypothecation of tax is
a key principle in UK.
Task A07-1
China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 48
Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013
The water itself is not commoditised in any way and costs relate only to the
management and abstraction of water only. Another very important principle in the
UK
In UK two similar but parallel schemes are in force, on for water abstraction and one for
discharge permitting. The principles are similar so only the water abstraction scheme is
descried. Figure 4.10.1 shows the introduction to the scheme and the full document will be
given in the electronic annex
Figure 4.10.1 Environment Agency Scheme of Abstraction Charges
The Charging scheme is usually reviewed on a five yearly basis and charges set for that
period. The Environment Agency will construct the proposed scheme with knowledge of past
and future costs. The Agency will then consult externally on the proposed scheme and
present Ministers with their recommendations and issues raised. The Minister then agrees a
final scheme.
The costs taken into account in the charging scheme include:
Permit application fees – usually a one-off set fee
Administration and maintenance of permits
Monitoring the environmental impact of abstraction
Task A07-1
China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 49
Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013
Water resource planning and modelling
Water flow monitoring infrastructure
Enforcement and prosecution work
Maintaining databases and public registers
Survey work to establish size and variability or resource
Staff and overheads
This allows a regional or river basin view of costs to be calculated which are given in Figure
4.10.2
Figure 4.10.2 Water Abstraction Charges for 2010 – Environment Agency
These charges are then allocated to abstractors according to a formula, given in Figure 4.10.3
Figure 4.10.3 Charging Formula – Environment Agency
Task A07-1
China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 50
Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013
It should be noted that this takes into account amount licenced and a series of other factors
relating to the availability of water in certain catchments and the costs of monitoring and
maintaining these. For example the ‘source factor’ will allow the additional cost of
groundwater monitoring and management to be added, resulting in a higher charge for
abstracting from groundwater.
In the UK most of the water is abstracted by the ten privatised water companies (like Thames
Water. They hold most licences and the largest by volume abstraction permits, mostly for
public supply. They pay significant charges to the Environment Agency for permits. These
costs are passed on to water customers via water bills. The water bills paid by water
customers relate closely to the full cost of the water service.
4.11 Future UK Permits
The UK is in the process of implementing a new Environmental Permitting Regime to provide
industry, regulators and others with a single extended permitting and compliance system. It
allows regulators to concentrate resources on medium and high-risk operations whilst
continuing to protect the environment and human health.
The Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2010 can be found at
https://www.gov.uk/government/policies/protecting-and-enhancing-our-urban-and-natural-en
vironment-to-improve-public-health-and-wellbeing/supporting-pages/the-environmental-perm
itting-system and further information from the Environment Agency at
http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/business/topics/permitting/
There will be an extended timetable for reviewing permits, and any new permits will be issued
in this form.
4.12 Enforcement and Prosecution
Clear and proportionate enforcement against illegal abstractions or discharges, failure against
permit conditions or in the case of a pollution incident or other environmental damage, is
essential. It is important to change the attitude of industry, municipalities and other operators
that their permit is to be taken seriously and adhered to. The public also need to be informed of
this change and reassured that the authorities are taking this seriously.
The EA has produced two linked guidance documents on enforcement and sanctions which
outline the steps that can be taken if a permit is breached, in the case of a pollution incident or
if other environmental damage occurs. These can be found at
Task A07-1
China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 51
Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013
http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/business/regulation/31851.aspx and the document
covers are seen in Figure 4.12.1.
There was considerable debate about whether these documents should be published, in case
offenders use the information to avoid prosecution. However, since publication, no evidence
of misuse has been identified and the overall the benefits of transparent and clear procedures
have been helpful for enforcement officers and the courts.
Figure 4.12.1 Enforcement and Sanctions Documents – Environment Agency
The EA has a range of enforcement powers available to use in these cases and the guidance
outlines what approach will be taken.
enforcement notices and works notices (where contravention can be prevented or
needs to be remedied)
Prohibition notices (where there is an imminent risk of serious environmental
damage)
suspension or revocation of environmental permits and licences
variation of permit conditions
injunctions
carrying out remedial works (where we carry out remedial works we will seek to
recover the full costs incurred from those responsible)
criminal sanctions, including prosecution
civil sanctions, including financial penalties
The use of penalties against environmental crime was set in a review undertaken for
government by a prominent environmental lawyer, Professor Richard Macrory. This is known
Task A07-1
China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 52
Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013
as the Regulators’ Compliance Code, 2007 and can be found at
http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file45019.pdf
The Macrory Review identified the following principles to consider when determining the
appropriate course of action to address offending and to ensure compliance.
aim to change the behaviour of the offender;
aim to eliminate any financial gain or benefit from non-compliance;
be responsive and consider what is appropriate for the particular offender and regulatory
issue, which can include punishment and the public stigma that should be associated with
a criminal conviction;
be proportionate to the nature of the offence and the harm caused;
aim to restore the harm caused by regulatory non-compliance, where appropriate; and
aim to deter future non-compliance
This has been distilled by the EA into four different types of preferred outcomes, shown in
Figure 4.12.2.
Figure 4.12.2 Four preferred outcomes from enforcement – Environment Agency UK
Having considered the preferred outcome in response to an incident the Environment Agency
has outlined the following decision tree – Figure 4.12.3 as guidance for enforcement officers
Task A07-1
China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 53
Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013
against a number of situations and enforcement variable and options. It is useful in
summarising the approach and the enforcement and sanctions choices available.
Figure 4.12.3 Enforcement and Sanctions - decision tree, from the Environment Agency
In the UK most enforcement action utilises the UK Criminal Law to obtain criminal
prosecutions against offenders. This is very powerful, however because of the seriousness
of the criminal justice system, high levels of proof and evidence are required and penalties by
the courts are relatively small (although progressively increasing). The criminal procedures
are often followed by Civil Law claims for damages and restoration. Often these are very
high, especially clean-up costs for major incidents like oil pollution.
However, the increased use of civil prosecutions was advocated in the Macrory Review and
UK is now introducing a suite of civil options, especially for minor offences. Fixed penalty
tickets can be issued by the Environment Agency without going through court procedures.
Other civil sanctions are also available.
It should be noted that in the USA most environment crimes are dealt with via civil actions,
although criminal prosecutions can also be taken in serious cases. The best current example
is the Gulf of Mexico oil rig accident in 2010.
http://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/gulf-of-mexico-restoration.html?gclid=CK_z_dDF2ro
CFc7JtAodARcAow
Task A07-1
China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 54
Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013
The following extract from the Guardian newspaper emphasises the civil liabilities in this
extreme situation. Criminal actions and fines may still follow against the companies and
company directors involved.
‘The company had set aside $7.8bn (£4.8bn) for compensation claims but by July the figure
had risen to $9.6bn and was set to rise significantly without court intervention. Claims
administrator Patrick Juneau said that about $3.69bn had been paid out in compensation. BP
has already incurred more than $42bn of charges for clean-up costs, fines and compensation
related to the spill.’ Guardian Newspaper 3 October 2013
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/oct/03/bp-us-court-appeal-ruling-deepwater-hori
zon-oil-spill
The following Figure 4.12.4 was presented by Eluned Watson, Pinsent and Masons Lawyer, to
the CEWP Study tour. It is from the UK Environment Agency and shows the fines and scope
of enforcement activity undertaken in 2011.
Figure 4.12.4 Summary of Criminal Fines for Environmental Offences 2011 – Environment
Agency
The UK is consolidating the approach to enforcement and other key water resource issues in a
new 2013 Water Bill that is currently passing through Parliament and is timetabled to become
UK Law in 2014. Information on this can be found at
http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2013-14/water.html
Task A07-1
China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 55
Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013
4.13 Public Access to information
Public Access to information is seen as critical in the UK and the rest of Europe
Essential in UK and this was consolidated in 2004 by the Environmental Information
Regulations. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2004/3391/contents/made
Defra outline the purpose of the regulations as follows
‘The Environmental Information Regulations (EIRs) 2004 are based on Directive
2003/4/EEC.
They give the public access rights to environmental information held by a public
authority in response to requests. The Regulations came into force on 1 January 2005
along with the Freedom of Information Act and cover any information that is considered
to be 'environmental information' within the terms of the Regulations.
The Regulations promote the release of as much environmental information as possible
to enable increased public participation in environmental decision making.’
Under these Regulations the Environment Agency holds a public register, which has been in
existence for water is various forms 1989. All environmental monitoring information, permits
and environmental information is made public through this register. There are very few
exceptions for commercial sensitivity and military installations, although the UK military is
increasingly placing all its environmental information in the public domain on a voluntary and
equivalent basis.
Basic information is available free to the public online. However the Environment Agency has
a charging policy for complex requests for information. This enables them to recover costs
involved in processing information and making it available. This also reduces the number of
trivial requests and reduces complex and time consuming questions. There are some
exemptions for educational and research requests from other public bodies.
Open public access to most information is available on line via a Geographic Information
System (GIS) system, known as – What’s in my Backyard
4.13.1 EA What’s in my Backyard –
The Environment Agency provides on line access to environmental information via a web
based interactive mapping system. This is called, ‘What’s In My Backyard’ and can be
accessed via http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/homeandleisure/37793.aspx. By
entering a post code (Zip code) all permits and environmental data can be accessed via the
map interface. A series of screen cuts is given below to provide an overview; Figures 4.13.1,
4.13.2 and 4.13.3
Task A07-1
China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 56
Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013
The interactive page allows a topic to be chosen.
Figure 4.13.1. – What’s in My Backyard – First interactive page
The Post code or address is entered on the next screen and the high level map allows direct
zoom facility.
Task A07-1
China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 57
Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013
Figure 4.13.2 – What’s in My Backyard – Map and Post Code interface
The next map provides an example of the environmental issues and activities in a selected
post code area, in this case west of Reading.
Task A07-1
China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 58
Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013
Figure 4.13.3 What’s in My Backyard – Environmental issues identified
The individual icons can be clicked on to provide the next level of information. The map can
be zoomed and panned to allow access to adjacent areas and points of environmental
interest.
This simple interface allows public access to a wide range of environmental information
derived from the Environment Agency databases. This also allows the Environment Agency
to fulfil its statutory duty to make environmental data available to the public. This is not the
only route for information and ‘Public Registers’ are maintained and can be accessed directly
on request to the EA.
This is an innovative initiative to bring environmental information to the public through the
internet. It was first made available about 10 years ago for a reduced range of parameters. It
has been extended and improved significantly over this time.
4.14 Pollution Incidents
Pollution incidents can occur from permitted installations or as a result of accidental or
deliberate actions by industry of the public. In the context of this report on permitting an
incident may occur as a result of an accident on a permitted site, power failure, negligence or
other external or internal interference.
On some occasions a failure to meet permit conditions can cause an incident. This would
include, over abstraction or polluting discharge can cause harm to the environment, public
health concerns or issues with drinking water.
The Environment Agency log and maintain a database of all incidents which they identify as in
Figure 4.14.1
Task A07-1
China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 59
Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013
Figure 4.14.1 Incident types
Incidents are categorised according to the following procedure as outlined in the Guidance
Document known as the Common Incident Classification Scheme.
http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/business/regulation/31825.aspx
The front page is given below in Figure 4.14.2
Figure 4.14.2 Common Incident Classification Scheme – Environment Agency 2011
Task A07-1
China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 60
Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013
In addition the Environment Agency has introduced a Compliance Classification Scheme
(2013) See Figure 4.14.3 for the key categories, to focus directly on incidents and failures at
permitted sites. http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/business/regulation/31825.aspx.
This complements the Common Incident Classification Scheme and feeds information into the
Pollution Incident System outlined below.
Figure 4.13.3 Common Compliance Classification Categories – Environment Agency 2013
4.14.1 National Incident Recording System and database
The UK Environment Agency has operated an incident database for many years. All
incidents and permit failures identified according to the Common Incident Classification
Scheme are recorded in the current National Incident Recording System according to the
guidance below in Figure 4.14.1
Figure 4.14.1 National Incident Recording System – Environment Agency
From this database information on type and seriousness of incidents can be gained. This
assists in work planning and in targeting pollution prevention campaigns and future legislation
and policy. Figure 4.14.2 is an output from this system and shows the numbers of serious
incidents
Task A07-1
China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 61
Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013
Figure 4.14.2 UK Serious Pollution Incidents 2005 – 2010 – Environment Agency
This and similar information directly informs public opinion and feeds into the communication
strategy for the Environment Agency.
4.15 Communication and Publicity on Water and Environment
The Environment Agency publishes summary environmental performance in annual reports
and provided more details in other more specific publications. Figure 4.15.1 is an extract
from the Environment Agency Annual Report from 2012.
Task A07-1
China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 62
Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013
Figure 4.15.1 Extract from the Environment Agency Annual Report 2012
It also describes the benefits of regulation in the next extract, Figure 4.15.2
Figure 4.15.2 Benefits of Regulation - Environment Agency Annual Report 2012
Task A07-1
China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 63
Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013
The Environment Agency encourages companies to go ‘beyond regulation’ and set their own
stringent standards, above the minimum set by the regulators. Some of the very best
companies publish their own performance – some in real time on web sites and at notice
boards at factory gates!
It is important to find the correct balance of encouragement and pressure to comply. Each
year the Environment Agency publishes a league table of best and worst performers.
However, the newspapers tend only to publish the lists of worst performers - no newspaper
publishes the best performers – bad news sells newspapers! Figure 4.15.3 is a newspaper
report on this league table in UK
Task A07-1
China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 64
Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013
Figure 4.15.3 - League Table - Times Newspaper - 15 May 2011
Increasingly big and multinational companies are very concerned about reputation and
environmental performance. Increasingly this is a very useful lever to ensure improved
performance and reporting.
The Environment Agency works hard to maintain a balance in regulation to ensure compliance
and to encourage innovation and improvement.
League table exposes worst water polluters
The worst water companies are being named as their performance deteriorates and pollution spills continue to threaten wildlife
Jon Ungoed-Thomas and Daniel Foggo Published: Times Newspaper - 15 May 2011
Bude beach is famous for surfers, but polluted by South West Water (Cornwall Tourist Board)
The country’s most polluting water companies have been named and shamed in the first publicly released official league table.
The worst offender is Welsh Water, with South West Water identified as the dirtiest company in England, followed by Severn Trent.
Figures released by the Environment Agency show for the first time the number of breaches in water standards by the 10 companies in
England and Wales. Some of the lapses directly affect bathing areas.
The statistics reveal how the firms performed in keeping to the permitted levels of contaminants in sewage. They also show the extent of
“pollution incidents” in which sewage was unintentionally leaked.
The total number of pollution spills topped 2,200 for 2009, nearly three quarters of which breached official consents. In this category,
Anglian Water was the worst performer, with 296 “unconsented incidents”. The company said many minor spills were caused by
blockages in the system and were beyond its control.
South West Water performed worst for the level of contaminants allowed in sewage released into water courses. However, it was joint best
in terms of the number of pollution incidents in the most severe category. Welsh Water and Severn Trent Water also failed to meet
permitted contaminant levels
Like some of the other companies, South West Water has been prosecuted for its worst slipups. In October 2009 it was fined £10,000 for
allowing excessively polluted sewage to be discharged into the sea around Bude, where there is a blue flag beach. The fine was reduced to
£2,000 on appeal.
Task A07-1
China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 65
Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013
5 Case Study - Water Permitting in Denmark
Figure 5 Map of Denmark.
The country is surrounded by water and connected to Sweden by a bridge. The country has
a common border with Germany. The country has a population of approximately 5.6 million
people.
5.1 Administrative arrangements in Denmark
5.1.1 Planning, permitting and delegation of responsibilities
Both the application procedures and the permission procedures vary between Danish
authorities. The permitting authority decides on the information to be provided by the
Task A07-1
China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 66
Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013
applicant – eventually through consultations – unless required information is specified in
statutory orders.
There are no common standard forms for application of permissions shared by authorities,
but the complexity of application and permitting procedures are laid down in legislation in
compliance with EU Directives.
A planning law (Danish Law on Planning, LBK nr. 587 27/05/2013) delegates the
responsibilities among authorities on planning and permitting
Two main levels of authorities in Denmark undertake planning and permitting on water
The Environmental Protection Agency with 2 Regional Divisions
98 municipalities.
5.1.2 Ministry of Environment and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
The Ministry of the Environment is responsible for administrative and research tasks in the
areas of environmental protection and planning. In Denmark the administration at state
level is managed by the Ministry of the Environment. At the local levels, much of the
administrative responsibility has been delegated to municipalities.
The Ministry consists of the Ministers Department, three agencies, and several
independent decentralised units across the country see Figure 5.1.1 An independent
appeal board is also linked to the Ministry. The Ministry employs more than 2500 people.
Figure 5.1.1 Organisation Chart – Danish Ministry of Environment
Task A07-1
China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 67
Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013
The Environmental Protection Agency is part of the Ministry of the Environment
The Environmental Protection Agency is organised into divisions. The environment divisions
are responsible for the tasks relating to important national and international nature and
environment interests, as well as especially complicated matters, for example plans for the
aquatic environment including River Basin Management Plans, permitting and supervision of
heavily polluting enterprises, wastewater treatment and appeals under environmental acts.
The Environmental Board of Appeal is in charge of processing appeals against decisions by
municipalities and environment centres under among others the Environmental Protection
Act, the Soil Contamination Act and the Water Supply Act.
5.1.3 The municipalities
The municipalities, among others, are responsible for supervision of enterprises, operation of
utilities and carry out the majority of specific authority tasks on municipal planning including
plans on water resources and water supply and plans on waste water management. They also
issue permissions on water abstraction and water discharges and undertake inspection and
compliance assessments. Municipalities are as well provided with considerable enforcement
powers.
Task A07-1
China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 68
Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013
Figure 5.1.2 Distribution of 98 municipalities in Denmark
5.1.4 River Basin Management Planning
The EPA and regional divisions prepare RBMPs in accordance with the WFD (Adopted in the
Danish Law on Environmental Goals, LBK nr. 932 24/09/2009). Denmark is divided in 4 RBM
districts and 23 sub-districts. A RBMP has been prepared for each of the 23 sub-districts.
The 4 RBM districts and sub-districts are distributed as shown in Figure 5.1.3 and as
described below:
1. RBM district. Area Jylland and Fyn
o Subdisctricts 1.1 - 1.15
2. RBM district. Area Sjælland
o Subdistricts 2.1 - 2.6
3. RBM district. Area Bornholm
o Subdistricts 3.1
4. RBM district. Area International
o Subdistricts 4.1
Task A07-1
China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 69
Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013
Figure 5.1.3. Four River Basin Districts and 23 sub-districts
Each of the 98 municipalities prepares a Waste Water Plan, and a Water Resources and
Water Supply Plan, which are subsidiary planning documents, supplementing a Municipality
Plan.
The relation between plans is hierarchic in the same way as the distribution of competencies
between EPA and the municipalities to avoid conflicting planning, permitting and
decision-making. It means that plans and permits prepared by the municipalities must not be
in conflict with specifications in the RBMPs, and permissions must not be in conflict with the
specifications in neither the RBMPs, nor the subsidiary documents supplementing the
Municipality Plan.
5.2 Application and Permitting Procedures - Overview
In principle, no one in Denmark is allowed to abstract water from surface or groundwater
bodies and no one is allowed to discharge waste water to water bodies without a permit.
But the procedure and the scale of efforts for preparing applications and get permissions on
water abstraction depends very much on the amount of abstracted water and the water
resource available in the abstraction area.
For waste water discharge permissions the procedure and scale of efforts depends on the
amount and pollution of water to be discharged, the planning target of the receiving water
body, as well as the overall complexity of environmental impacts of the facility, where from the
water is going to be discharged. The procedures are the same for permissions for “green field
installations” or permissions to change, or upgrade already existing permissions.
Even if permits on water abstraction and waste water discharge are formulated in a straight
forward way, the application procedure is often complicated, requiring both comprehensive
status and assessment reports and initiation of time consuming consultations and political
decision processes. That is especially the case when an integrated application and permitting
procedure is based on requirements of the Danish version of the EIA Directive, cases under
the IPPC Directive or even the Seveso Directive.
Integrated applications and permissions address many different environmental impacts, in
addition to those which might arise from abstraction and discharge of waste water. Even if
permissions concerning water are simple and straight forward then they cannot be issued in
isolation, but must be assessed within an integrated approach, on equal terms with, for
instance, impacts from noise, air pollution and nature protection.
In the following sections a distinction is made between procedures for integrated permitting as
described in the EIA, IPPC and Seveso Directives and procedures for simple straight forward
Task A07-1
China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 70
Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013
permitting on water abstraction and waste water discharge in accordance with Danish water
laws and corresponding Directives.
5.3 Complex Permissions
5.3.1 EIA Based Permissions
The Danish planning law (Law on Planning, LBK nr. 587 27/05/2013) delegates the
responsibilities among authorities on planning and permitting. But the law also introduces
integrated permitting with reference to the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Directive15
as adopted in Denmark through a Statutory Order on Assessment of impacts from Certain
Public and Private Facilities in consequence of Law on Planning (Bek. Nr. 1314 21/12/2011)
39 types of projects are specified In Appendix 1 in the Danish Statutory Order and the EIA
Directive, where permissions require that an impact assessment procedure must be done as
part of the application process. The result of the assessment must be taken into account in the
permission. An Appendix 2 specifies approximately 80 types of projects which must be
screened to see if essential environmental impacts arise, if they are implemented as planned.
If the result of the screening indicates that essential environmental impacts occur then an EIA
must be done as well and the result must be taken into account as part of issuing permission.
The approach to EIA based permissions is that major projects may have many different
impacts on the environment. Therefor to provide permission on water abstraction or discharge
of waste water alone, may only cover some types of environmental impacts, which may not be
the most severe. The project and its impacts as a whole must be considered within an
integrated approach which may require appropriate mitigation measures as part of an
integrated EIA permission.
Another aspect of the integrated EIA permitting procedure in Denmark is that an application is
handled by the authorities with the intended concept: one door in and one door out. It
means that the applicant will not need to contact different authorities or offices to relevant
permissions. It is intended that the authorities will coordinate internally without involving the
applicant in unnecessary bureaucracy, and the permission shall be issued as an assembled
permission taking into account mitigation of impacts for both water, soil, air, noise, nature and
others. An EIA permission including abstraction and discharge permits will always be reflected
in an addendum to the Municipality Plan. It means that both the Municipality Plan and the
subsidiary Water Resource and Waste Water Plans are progressively revised through
addenda.
Many applications and permissions are issued as part of the EIA procedure in Denmark. The
complexity is first of all shown in the requirements on needed documentation in the EIA report
as part of an application. An assessment report is prepared with content rarely below 100
15
Directive on the assessment of the effect of certain public and private projects on the environment. 2011/92/EU.
Task A07-1
China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 71
Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013
pages, and with a standard content of the report16 as shown in Box 5.3.1 below. The time
required for working out the EIA report may take more than 6 months including procedures for
consultations with the permitting authority and at least one with the public.
Box 5.3.1 – Standard content of an EIA report - Denmark
EIA based permissions are worked out by both municipalities and EPA and the 5 subsidiary
Regional Centres, but EPA will be the competent authority for complex permissions and
permissions with impacts covering more than one municipality.
5.3.2 IPPC based permissions
16
The EIA directive, article 5(1) and Annex IV
The standard content of an EIA report to be delivered as part of an EIA based application
1) A description of the project, including in particular:
i) a description of the physical characteristics of the whole project and the land-use requirements during
the construction and operational phases;
ii) a description of the main characteristics of the production processes, for instance, the nature and
quantity of the materials used;
iii) an estimate, by type and quantity, of expected residues and emissions (water, air and soil pollution,
noise, vibration, light, heat, radiation, etc.) resulting from the operation of the proposed project.
2) An outline of the main alternatives studied by the developer and an indication of the main reasons for this
choice, taking into account the environmental effects.
3) A description of the aspects of the environment likely to be significantly affected by the
proposed project, including, in particular, population, fauna, flora, soil, water, air, climatic factors, material
assets, including the architectural and archaeological heritage, landscape and the interrelationship between the
above factors.
4) A description ( 1 ) of the likely significant effects of the proposed project on the environment resulting from:
i) the existence of the project;
ii) the use of natural resources;
iii) the emission of pollutants, the creation of nuisances and the elimination of waste.
5) The description by the developer of the forecasting methods used to assess the effects on the environment
referred to in point 4.
6) A description of the measures envisaged to prevent, reduce and where possible offset any significant adverse
effects on the environment.
7) A non-technical summary of the information provided under headings 1 to 6.
8) An indication of any difficulties (technical deficiencies or lack of know-how) encountered by the developer in
compiling the required information.
Task A07-1
China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 72
Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013
The requirements of the IPPC directive17 are adopted in the Danish Environment Protection
Law, Chapter 5 (LBK nr. 879 26/06/2010) on heavily polluting enterprises and other statutory
documents. Applications and permissions for heavily polluting enterprises are often handled
as part of an EIA procedure as many of them can be described in relation to either Appendix 1
or 2 of the Danish Statutory Order on EIA and the EIA directive, but not necessarily with
emphasis on water abstraction or waste water discharge. The IPPC Directive specifies the
information required from enterprises applying for permissions. The enterprises to be handled
in accordance with requirements of the IPPC directive are listed in two appendices, similar, but
not the same as in the EIA directive.
Major enterprises and enterprises with essential impacts on the environment which fall under
the IPPC Directive need to satisfy permissions on abstraction and discharge of water as part
of the integrated EIA procedure and a EIA report with a content as described above, but IPPC
based applications and permissions will often have to focus on hazardous components and
application of BAT (Best Available Technology). Permitting on discharge of waste water and
hazardous components takes place based on Directive 2006/11/EF18 as adopted in the
Danish Statutory Order on Water Quality Demands in the Aquatic Environment and Demands
on Discharge of Hazardous Components to Rivers, Lakes and the Ocean, (BEK. nr. 1022
25/08/2010)
IPPC based applications and permissions are worked out in parallel with the EIA procedure
and published together with an EIA permission and according to the time constraints set in the
EIA procedure.
The Ministry of the Environment will be the competent authority to determine permissions for
all enterprises requiring complex IPPC based permissions or enterprises with impacts
covering more than one municipality.
5.3.3 Seveso Directive Based Permissions
The requirements of Seveso III Directive19 are partly adopted in the Danish law on Risk
Control for Major Accidents with Hazardous Components, BEK. nr. 1666 14/12/2006.
Applications and permissions must be worked out in accordance with types and amounts of
hazardous components available in an enterprise as specified in Column 1 and 2 in appendix
1 and 2 of the Danish law and the Directive
All applications and permissions for Column 1 enterprises shall in Denmark at least have an
EIA permission based on an EIA application and report, including additional sections on risk.
17
Directive on Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control, 2008/1/EC
18 Directive on pollution caused by certain dangerous substances discharged into the aquatic
environment, (2006/11/EF)
19 Directive on the control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances, 2012/18/EU
Task A07-1
China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 73
Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013
But the permission must include an approval of a Safety Document describing how the
reduction of the probability of major accidents is introduced through risk management. In
addition emergency plans shall be described and land use planning taken into account with
the purpose to protect the environment and to avoid health risks for workers and humans in
densely populated areas.
All applications and permissions for Column 2 enterprises shall provide a safety report which
is less comprehensive than the Safety Document for Column 1 enterprises.
Seveso Directive based applications and permissions in Denmark are very comprehensive
and complex. This is because the final decision on permissions will have to rely on
calculating probabilities that certain types of accidents may occur, in combination with the
hazards from dangerous substances, in different amounts or concentrations.
Seveso based applications will always require an EIA report and the authority to issue
permission is always the EPA or one of the regional EPA centers. But in addition 4 other
authorities are involved in approving safety documents and safety reports: The Danish
Working Environment Service, the Police, the Fire-brigade and the City or Local Council. An
EIA permission including permission to abstract water or discharge waste water cannot be
issued unless the Safety documents or the safety reports are approved.
5.4 Discharge of Water - Simple Applications Denmark
The main legislative document in Denmark for issuing permissions on discharge of water is
the: Statutory Order on permissions to discharge waste water in accordance with Chapter 3
and 4 in the Law on Environment Protection, Bek.11/12/2007.
Chapter 4 in the Law on Environment Protection specifies that the Municipalities must prepare
a Waste Water Plan (WWP). The WWP describes among others how and where waste water
shall be treated and discharged. It is the main regulating tool for issuing permissions, and
permissions must comply with the intentions and demands laid down in the WWP and the
RBMPs.
Different types of waste water are specified in the Order which serves as background for
making a distinction between different types of permissions.
Waste water refers to water discharged from resident areas, enterprises, dispersed
settlements and paved areas.
Domestic waste water refers to water discharged from households including outflow
from water closets
Roof and superficial run-off refers to rainwater from roof areas and paved and partly
paved areas with a chemical composition similar to rainwater
Sewage treatment works refer to open and closed pipes and treatment facilities for
transport and treatment of waste water
Task A07-1
China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 74
Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013
Collecting tanks refer to dense, officially approved tank types
In general the characteristics of waste water types in simple permissions refer to
eutrophication components with the emphasis on controlling BOD, N and P. More complicated
applications and permits are required for industrial waste water and other types of water
contaminated with prioritized hazardous components.
Permissions for discharge of different types of waste water are based on different conditions.
The following main types of water discharges are specified in the Order on water discharge as
background for setting conditions.
Waste water and treatment
Discharge of domestic waste water into public sewer systems connected to
treatment plants
Discharge of treated domestic waste water from treatment plants with different
capacities into lakes, rivers and the ocean
Discharge of industrial waste water from major treatment plants into lakes,
rivers and the ocean
Discharge of waste water from overflow of sewer systems
Rain water and run-off
Discharge of rainwater from roofs and superficial run-off from paved areas
Discharge of water with a chemical content different from rainwater from roads,
railroads and paved parking lots for more than 20 cars
Waste water in open and rural areas
Discharge of water from scattered houses representing <30 PE
Discharge of waste water by seepage from houses representing <30 PE
Discharge of waste water to tank installations for up to 2 houses
For building and construction works discharge applications are often combined with
applications on water abstraction based on either a temporary or a permanent request
related to a building phase or the long term operation of facilities, see sections 5.6 -5.8
above.
5.4.1 The application process
The permitting authorities let the applicants do the work to assemble the relevant information
which is needed for determining permissions for discharge of water.
The information required in applications is not always immediately available and requires legal
and technical expertise, including modeling and establishing monitoring programs, based on
expensive analyses. The result is that preparation of some applications is considered as
professional work to be done by private consultants or private consulting firms with liability
Task A07-1
China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 75
Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013
insurance and certification of working methods and quality procedures. The public authorities
do not provide these services.
In the following the simple permit application process on water discharge is based on the
practice in Copenhagen Municipality. This represents the densely populated capital area of
Denmark. At least three municipal administration Centers have competencies in the permitting
process depending on the kind of permission applied for: Center for Environment, Center for
Park and Nature and Center for Building activities. An applicant will be guided by the municipal
administration to address the right administrative center and a link is available on the internet
telling where to go and what to do20.
If the application is for the discharge of rainwater and run-off, the Center for Park and
Nature shall be addressed. If the discharge permission shall be issued for building or
construction activities then the Center for Building Activities shall be involved as well.
If the application is for the discharge of waste water and treatment, the Center for
Environment shall be addressed. If the discharge permission is issued for building or
construction activities then the Center for Building Activities is involved as well.
If the application is for discharge to rivers, lakes, the ocean or in open land, the Center for
Park and Nature is addressed.
In some applications all three Centers may be involved. The coordination between
Centers takes place internally.
An application shall be determined in accordance with requirements of the permitting authority
(Center), see section 5.11 on Application Forms below.
When all information is in place the application will either be rejected or permission will be
issued. The administrative procedure has a duration of 4 weeks.
In response to the decision by the authority, a complaint from the applicant can be forwarded
to an Environmental Appeal Board within 4 weeks. The Appeal Board will consider the
decision or instruct the authority to remake the administrative procedure in case a decision
has been made incorrectly or against insufficient background information.
5.4.2 Application forms
As stated earlier there are no application formats common to all permitting authorities on
discharge of water except for information on:
20
http://www.kk.dk/da/erhverv/tilladelser/byggeri/vand
Task A07-1
China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 76
Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013
Who is the applicant/builder and what is the exact address and eventually
cadastre number/house-owner association, telephone number and e-mail
address.
Who has sent the application, telephone number and e-mail address
The last point shall be seen in the context that most applications are prepared by private
consultants or consulting firms on behalf of the owner/builder who needs the discharge
permission. In many cases an application requires technical information which needs
expertise to be applied and presented correctly.
The request for information from the permitting authority in application forms may be very
simple and open and may be formulated as:
A detailed description of the background for the application and the services to
be applied for.
The level of Information to be delivered in an application as background information may be
presented as shown in the following examples.
5.4.3 Example of information required on temporary discharge of water to the
ocean
The information to be delivered in an application to Centre for Park and Nature in
Copenhagen Municipality on discharge of water to the ocean (harbour) may include
information on:
Background for the application - for example the need for discharge of ground
water for a temporary lowering of the ground water table during construction
and building activities.
Location of the discharge point with exact address and detailed maps in a
proper scale showing both the construction site and the discharge location
Description of the discharge point, with regard to lay out and description of
whether pressure or gravitation pipes shall be applied
A statement of whether other discharges take place at the same discharge
point and whether it takes place through the storm water system, the waste
water collection system or through a private pipe established for the purpose
A description of the total discharge amount of water applied for and daily
fluctuations over time
Indication of the time period when the discharge will take place and when it
starts
Measurements of the water quality usually with emphasis on Total N, Total P,
Suspended Solids and BI5.
Task A07-1
China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 77
Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013
information on concentrations and amounts of heavy metals and other
hazardous components during the period of discharge applied for in case the
discharge of water is going to take place from areas with soil contamination,
The extent of chemical analyses to be agreed with the permitting authority,
Centre for Park and Nature
Proposed waste water treatment before discharging
Indication of other treatment methods examined
A description of all Best Available Technology (BAT) alternatives which have
been examined during the design phase with regard to water discharge
Proposed program for supervision of amounts of water being discharged and
water quality (also for the purpose of calculating water discharge taxes if
public sewers are applied)
Proposal for how to report on amounts of discharged water and water chemistry
5.4.4 Example of information in an application for household discharge into
sewer systems
Indication of how and where the connection between the sewer from the
building and the existing waste water sewer shall be established (must be
agreed with another authority before the application is sent, if the connection
shall be established directly into a waste water well)
Information on the expected pollution of household waste water (in PE) to be
discharged into the existing waste water collector system
A description of the expected maximum discharge flow and the daily
fluctuations over time
Indication of the time period when the discharge will take place and when it
starts
Indication of whether waste water treatment has been considered before
discharged into the existing sewer system
Indication of the treatment methods which have been examined
Proposal for a supervision programme (also with the purpose to be able to
calculate future discharge and treatment charges)
5.4.5 Example - Discharge of water - Copenhagen
The following example shows the general approach for permitting on discharge of water into
the ocean.
Conditions in permissions in Copenhagen Municipality set by the Centre of Park and Nature.
In other municipalities similar Centres also exist like Centre for Environment and Plan in
Lyngby-Taarbaek Municipality, see later.
Task A07-1
China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 78
Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013
Some overall problems to be addressed in permissions are focused on
To avoid hazardous components and other chemical components being
discharged in concentrations that might represent a risk to the environment.
To avoid discharged polluting components exceeding water quality standards
in specific water bodies as described in the RBMP, taking the existing load
into account.
To prevent the discharge of water causing aesthetic nuisance or leaving any
visible traces of oil or other components, which might cause unacceptable
colour, smell or reduction in coastal water transparency.
To ensure that surface water from roofs and paved pedestrian areas is
discharged through sand catchers into storm water systems, or alternatively
is retained within the catchment
To ensure that surface water from paved parking areas and road areas is
discharged into a combined storm and waste water system
5.4.6 General approach for permitting on discharges to sewer systems
Conditions in permissions are in Copenhagen Municipality are set by the Center for
Environment. Some overall problems to be addressed in permissions focus on:
Avoiding that the hydraulic capacity of sewer systems is exceeded.
Avoiding blocking or corrosion of sewers.
Avoid exceeding the capacity of treatment plants and to avoid inhibition of
treatment processes.
To prevent risks to the health of staff working in sewers and at treatment plants.
To avoid risks of impacts in water bodies receiving treated waste water
See to that sludge from treatment plants can be disposed or applied safely.
See to that the discharge of hazardous components is reduced as much as possible
through application of BAT.
5.4.7 Example format and content of simple permission
Formats of permission for discharges of water are based on a common template. The
template and the content of a permit from Taarbæk Municipality is shown below.
The following example of a commented permission format is based on:
“Permission to discharge treated waste water from Mølleaavaerket to Oeresund –
discharge point the Oeresund pipe, Hjortekærbakken nr., Cadaster nr., Lundtofte”.
Date. Lyngby – Tårbaek Municipality. Center for Environment and Plan
Task A07-1
China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 79
Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013
Statement and decision
The permission to discharge treated waste water from Mølleåværket to Øresund is given in
accordance with the application and with reference to specified laws and statutory orders
Conditions for the permission
The permission is given with reference to the technical description in the application and in
accordance with the enumerated conditions 1-14.
1. Specified capacity of the treatment facility
2. Specification of the permitted amount of discharged water under different conditions
3. Specification of allowed overflow
4. The exact position of the point of discharge
5. Limit values for concentrations of BI5, SS, Tot- N, Tot-P and COD
6. Specification of demands on concentrations of hazardous components
7. Demand in case concentrations of chemical components are exceeded
8. Demand on installing new equipment for flow measurements
9. Specification of control with regard to sampling and chemical analyses
10. Specification of flow control in accordance with standard procedure
11. Requirement to make a journal of operations and to make the journal available for
inspection
12. Demand to report on irregularities of operation and reporting to the inspection
13. Specification of a time schedule for preparing a yearly report on operation including
irregularities
14. Statement saying that the inspection may require additional documentation.
Guidance on appeal
Specification of procedure in case the permission or its content is not accepted
Who can forward an appeal
Listing of all persons and organisations with the right to forward an appeal.
Basis for decision on permission
Legislative and planning background
Law on Environment Protection
Statutory Order on permissions to discharge waste water in accordance
with Chapter 3 and 4 in Law on Environment Protection
Law on Environmental Goals
River Basin District Management Plan 2.3 Øresund
Waste Water Plan 2006-2011, Lyngby-Tårbæk Municipality
Task A07-1
China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 80
Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013
Information received
Application from Mølleaaværket to Lyngby-Tårbæk Municipality
Additional information on existing permissions on discharge of water
Consultative opinion from EPA
Background description from the application
Environmental and technical description
o The reasoning behind the application for extended discharge
o Specification of relevant water quality aspects of the RBMP
o Description of the treatment facility, Mølleåværket.
o Review of the discharge conditions and treatment efficiency
o Planned control facilities on waste water flow
o Overflow frequencies and reducing mitigation measures
o Distribution of responsibilities on permitting and supervision
Environmental and technical evaluation
Operation of the existing facility and impact from discharged waste water
Compliance with water quality requirements in the Oeresund RBMP
Impacts from hazardous components in discharged waste water
Impacts from hazardous components in overflow waste water
Summary of information applied for decision on permission
Contact for further information
o Center for Environment and Plan, name and telephone number.
The permission has approximately 8 pages, see Annex XX, which corresponds to other simple
permissions issued by Copenhagen Municipality and Lyngby-Tårbæk Municipality on similar
subjects:
“Temporary permission to discharge surface water from a construction site, Sankt Annae
Place, to Copenhagen Harbour.” Date. Copenhagen Municipality. Center for Park and Nature.
“Permission to discharge drinking water as part of operating the main water supply pipe to
Mølleåen. Lundtoftevej nr. Cadastre nr. Lundtofte”. Date. Lyngby–Tårbæk Municipality.
Center for Environment and Plan
5.5 Abstraction of Water - Simple Applications - Denmark
Groundwater and surface water must not be exploited without permissions, §18 Law on Water
Abstraction and Water Supply.
Task A07-1
China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 81
Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013
The main legislative documents in Denmark for issuing permissions on water abstraction are
the Law on Water Supply, LBK nr. 635 07/06/2010 and the Statutory Order on Water
Abstraction and Water Supply, Bek.1451 11/12/2007.
The main planning documents to be taken into account will be the RBMPs where the
distribution and planned exploitation of water resources will be adopted. At the moment
Denmark is in a transition period where water resource planning is laid down in Regional Plans
will be phased out.
For future protection and for sustainable use of water resources the regional planning to be
adopted in the RBMPs a country wide categorisation and mapping is ongoing with regard to
“Areas for Abstraction of Special Interest” and “Areas for Abstraction of Some Interest”. The
categorisation is based on geological and geomorphological data as well as information on
protective soil profiles and ground water chemistry as described from borings during the last
100 years. A special issue in that context is related to registration of “Nitrate Sensitive Areas”
within the category “Areas for Abstraction of Special Interest”. In Denmark high concentrations
of nitrate in groundwater are an indicator of unprotected groundwater magazines needing
special protection and attention.
In addition to the country wide registration of abstraction areas the municipalities prepare two
local plans relevant for permitting
a prioritised action plan for protection and sustainable use of water resources in
accordance with §13(a-d) in Law on Water Abstraction and Water Supply
a plan on water supply describing where and how water resources shall be made
available and how the resources shall be distributed within districts in accordance
with Law on Water Abstraction and Water Supply §14(a).
The main regulating tools for issuing permissions must comply with the intentions and
demands laid down in the municipal water supply plan, the action plan and the RBMP, taking
into account the ongoing regional categorisation and mapping of ground water magazines.
Applications and permits related to water abstraction include many different purposes as for
instance new abstractions for drinking water purposes, watering of crops, lowering of
groundwater tables in connection with construction works or abstraction for infiltration for
mitigate effects at contaminated sites. Only in some cases formats exist and the requirements
on information may vary depending on the subject.
For building and construction works abstraction applications are often combined with
applications on water discharge based on either a temporary or a permanent request related
to a building phase or the long term operation of facilities.
Task A07-1
China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 82
Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013
Application and permits are required for establishing and cancelling boreholes whenever
groundwater is involved. At least 9 different types of boreholes need permission21. In the
following sections on applications and permits on abstraction of water such permissions on
borings are a priori assumed to have been achieved.
Permissions will always be issued for a defined time period which cannot exceed 30 years.
Permissions for abstraction of ground water for irrigation of crops must not be issued for more
than 15 years. Surface water permissions must not exceed 10 years
5.5.1 Simple application process for abstraction permit
Municipalities determine local water supply plans and action plans for protection of water
resources. Based on their access to background information they are the competent
permitting authorities on water abstraction.
Abstraction of water for drinking water purposes or major irrigation schemes takes place in the
open land in less densely populated municipalities, while abstraction of water in densely
populated town areas like Copenhagen mainly takes place in relation to building and
construction works. There are no ground water aquifers or surface water bodies delivering
drinking water to the population in Copenhagen Municipality or for major irrigation schemes. In
the following a distinction is made between applications and permissions for abstractions of
surface and groundwater for water supply and irrigation in the open land and abstraction for
building and construction works in Copenhagen Municipality.
5.5.2 Abstraction of drinking and irrigation water in the open land
Applications are forwarded to a municipality where an applicant will be informed about where
to deliver the application, or via an internet link will advise on the correct address and what to
do
For major abstractions of drinking water or irrigation in municipalities in the open land both
applications and permissions must be prepared in two steps:
Provisional application and permit
Final application and permit
This approach is justified from the uncertainties arising when abstraction fields are established
or extended. A straight forward statement in the WFD says that the water table in abstraction
fields must not change by time to sustain good ground water status. The sustainability of the
supply capacity is tested before final applications and permits are prepared by making a
procedure with provisional and final applications and permits separated by time.
21
Statutory Order on Establishing and Cancelling of Borings and Wells on Land, Bek. 1000 26/07/2007
Task A07-1
China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 83
Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013
Before initiation of bore works and pumping facilities the municipality must receive the
provisional application with technical specifications. The municipality makes a technical
evaluation of the project and decides on issuing a provisional permission.
The permission allows the applicant to start work. After normally one year the applicant
forwards the final application, which shall include information on the experience achieved in
addition to the information in the provisional application
According to this procedure permissions for abstraction of surface water will be valid for a
period 10 years. For abstraction of ground water permissions will normally be valid for 15
years.
5.5.3 Abstraction in densely populated town areas
The simple permit application process on water abstraction described is based on the practice
in Copenhagen Municipality. The Centre for Environment is the main authority concerning
applications and permissions on groundwater. A link is available on the internet telling where
to go and what to do. In some applications other Centres may be involved as well. The
coordination between Centers takes place internally.
In a densely populated area Like Copenhagen, abstractions are most often temporary and
tend to relate to construction and building works. Permanent and sometimes temporary
abstractions of ground water are not allowed in the older parts of Copenhagen where buildings
are drive piled on wood.
An application shall be worked out in accordance with requirements from the permitting
authority (Centre). When all information is in place the application will either be rejected or
permission will be issued. The administrative procedure has a duration of 4 weeks.
In response to the decisions by the authority on abstraction in both the open land and in
densely populated areas a complaint from the applicant can be forwarded to an Environmental
Appeal Board within 4 weeks. The Appeal Board will reconsider the decision or instruct the
authority to remake the administrative procedure in case a decision has been made on a
wrong or insufficient background.
5.5.4 Simple application forms
An application format and the information required in applications on abstraction of water is
included in Statutory order on water Abstraction and Water Supply22.
Common information needed in all application forms includes:
22
BEK nr. 1451 11/12/2007
Task A07-1
China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 84
Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013
Who is the applicant/builder and what is the exact address and eventually cadastre
number/house-owner association, telephone number and e-mail address.
Who has sent the application, telephone number and e-mail address
The last point shall be seen in the context that most applications are prepared by private
The level of Information to be delivered in an application as background information may be
presented as shown in the following examples.
5.5.5 Example Abstraction of drinking and irrigation water in the open land
In case the abstraction application and permits shall be worked out in two steps.
The temporary application must contain information as shown below
1) Description of purpose behind the abstraction application with a justification for the
applied amount of water. In case it is an application for general supply of water
then it must be described how the supply area shall be determined, how many
users separated in user categories to be supplied and existing prognoses for
water needs taking the future development into consideration.
2) Indication of the expected locations of the abstraction points and facilities, the
expected abstraction area, the location of observation borings and location of
stations in rivers for measuring fluctuation of surface water levels and flow. All
information (1: 25,000) shown on maps in proper scale. All area related
information to be shown with cadastre information.
3) An estimated assessment of the possibilities to abstract the amounts of water
applied for and an estimated assessment of effects arising from abstracting
water. If possible then information should be forwarded on the type of water to be
abstracted with an assessment on whether it is suitable for the purpose.
4) For groundwater abstraction: Information about pollution or soil contamination
which the applicant knows about within the abstraction area. For abstraction of
surface water: Information about essential polluting conditions which the
applicant knows about at or upstream the intake.
5) Specification of areas and user rights, which shall be achieved through
expropriation, including ownership and cadastre information. To be presented on
a map of proper scale.
6) A list of owners and users whom the applicant would like to see involved in
negotiations and the decision procedure on permission.
If a temporary permission for water abstraction turns out to be successful, then a final and
permanent application must be worked out and sent to the municipality with the following
content, partly repeating the request for information in the preliminary application
1) Copy of report on new borings as specified in the temporary application
Task A07-1
China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 85
Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013
2) Chemical analyses of raw water for each boring. For abstraction of surface water
the yearly variation of chemical analyses must be included as well.
3) Description of the planned abstraction facilities
4) An assessment of the supply capacity of the abstraction facilities based on survey
monitoring in the field
5) A statement on the location of the abstraction facilities
6) An assessment of abstracted water as to the suitability as drinking water based on
the results of chemical analyses
7) A description of how flush water shall be discharged and how sludge shall be
treated and disposed
8) Description of how and where planned distribution pipes shall be located, what
they shall be made of, their dimensions and the pressure in pipes. In addition a
draft regulation on how the facility shall be managed and an estimate of unit price
for supplied water to the consumers shall be provided.
9) Description of area to be affected, the existing use of the area, the need for
expropriation with information on ownership and detailed maps
10) A list of owners and users whom the applicant would like to see involved in
negotiations and the decision procedure on permission
For applications on water for irrigation many municipalities provide guidelines on the amount
of abstracted water for irrigation purposes to be accepted. Such guidelines are presented to
avoid unrealistic applications. Some examples are shown below.
Crops on mixed sandy soils: 1.000 m³/ha/year
Other soil types: 750 m³/ha/year
Market gardening: 1.500 m³/ha/year
Gardening centres and sports fields: 2.000 m³/ha/year
Container and pottery culturing: 10.000 m³/ha/year
Greenhouses: 15.000 m³/ha/year
Golf courses: 2.000 m³/ha/year
Municipalities also provide guidelines to assist with information on acceptable minimum
distances for abstraction locations in accordance with statutory orders on locating water
abstraction facilities in relation to protected areas and polluting sites.
5 m: minimum distance to boundary premises and high voltage cables in the
soil or low voltage air lines
10 m: minimum distance to open ditches, water courses and high voltage air
lines
25 m: minimum distances to manure containment facilities, animal barns, silage
tanks, septic tanks, drain pipes, fascines for rainwater and oil tanks
50 m: minimum distance from trickling facilities for road water.
Task A07-1
China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 86
Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013
100 m: minimum distance to abstraction boreholes, wells, churchyards and
burial sites for dead animals.
150 m: minimum distance to percolation facilities for household waste water,
manure heaps without bottom and ensilage deposits on bare soil
300 m: minimum distance to supply borings from public and private water works
and private wells, protected water courses, lakes, meadows and moors,
waste disposal sites and sites for disposal of waste water treatment sludge
Distance must be maintained to protect oil and gas pipes
5.5.6 Abstraction in densely populated town areas
Abstraction of water in densely populated town areas is in this report assumed not to take
place with the purpose to provide water for consumption or irrigation, but mostly for temporary
or permanent lowering off groundwater tables at construction sites and with structures
established in locations with high water tables or areas threatened by flooding.
Basic information required for this kind of abstraction activities is often also combined with an
application for discharge of water
5.6 Example - Format and content a simple permission
Formats of permissions are not structured to be the same between municipalities in Denmark,
but the content of permissions is comparable and relies on similar assessments.
The following example of a commented permission format is based on a concept from
Norddjurs Municipality.
The concept refers to permission:
“Irrigation and water supply for drinking water from an abstraction facility located at
Allingåbro. Final permission”.
In the following the overall content of the permission is shown with a commented approach
Statement and decision
Norddjurs Municipality hereby issue permission to abstract groundwater for irrigation of
field crops, gardening crops and for drinking water on the farm from boring nr. 70,346. The
permission is given on the following conditions (and with reference to a number of laws and
statutory orders):
1. Abstracted groundwater must only be used for irrigation and drinking water
supply. If not - a new application must be made.
Task A07-1
China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 87
Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013
2. Specification of the allowed amount of abstracted water and how the water
shall be used.
3. Sampling and analyses of water must be done and water quality parameters
must not be exceeded as the water is abstracted also for drinking water
purposes. Specification of sampling and analysis conditions (with reference to
legislation). It is a demand that an accredited firm must do the sampling and
the analyses. The firm is obliged to send a copy of the results to Norddjurs
Municipality once a year.
4. The allowed abstracted amount of water and method of measurement is
specified
5. Reporting to the municipality on abstracted amounts of water and periods of
measurements
6. Existing pumps must be replaced with new pumps. The municipality must be
informed of the new capacity of pumps
7. Specification of conditions, if new pumps are installed.
8. Drinking water shall be abstracted by separate pump. Indication that additional
conditions may be required
9. The borehole must not be lowered without permission (102 m)
10. Specifications for correct installation and operation of pumps
11. Changes in the water table must be monitored twice a year and the results
must be sent to the municipality and be available on request.
12. Restrictions on the use of chemicals within a 5 m zone around the borehole
13. Restrictions on the use of the area within a 300 m zone around the borehole
14. The permission is issued for a 10 year period
Basis for decision on permission
Available information
Description of the farm and the production of crops
Distance from the borehole to pollution sources
o Dung heap >25m
o Manure tank >25 m
o Silage tank >25
o Drain system 140 m
o Rain water fascine >25 m
o Oil tanks >30 m
Remarks from Norddjurs Municipality
Comments to the annual abstraction of water during the last ten years
Lack of measurements of changes to the ground water table and the
future conditions
Description of arrangements around the boring
Comments on supervision
Task A07-1
China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 88
Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013
Hydrogeological assessment of possible impact on a water course and
a lake
Location of the nearest water abstraction facility
Location of other abstraction fields
Potential impacts on protected nature areas
Results of a EIA-screening indicating no essential impacts
Overall environmental and technical evaluation
Location of the abstraction point in the soil profile
Geological soil types in the profile and protection of the groundwater
table
Former monitoring of the supply capacity at location
Publishing of the permission
Information on when and where the decision will be published
Guidance on appeal
Specification of procedure on appeal in case the permission or its content
is not accepted by either organisations, authorities or individuals
List of organisations, authorities and persons informed about the decision
6 organisations and authorities. 3 individuals
The permission consists of 9 pages including 2 maps. It corresponds to other average
permissions on water abstraction issued by municipalities in Denmark
For a more comprehensive permission on abstraction of water in the open land refer to:
“Final permission to abstract up to 2 million m3 groundwater each year from Bøgeskov
supply field in Vejen Municipality”. Vejen Municipality. Nature, Environment & Building. The
permission consists of 18 pages including 3 appendices. See appendix XX.
To see an example of a temporary permission for both abstraction and discharge of water
from a construction site in a densely populated town area refer to:
“Temporary permission to discharge abstracted groundwater from Sankt Annæ Plads into
Copenhagen harbour”. Copenhagen Municipality. Center for park and Nature. The
permission consists of 9 pages.
Task A07-1
China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 89
Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013
5.7 Inspection and compliance assessment
It is not necessary to repeat a detailed description of permitting, inspection and compliance
assessments in Denmark with regard to:
Quality assurance
Choice of Sampling Points in monitoring programs
Access, facilities and services
Sample bottles, storage and transportation
Laboratory analysis and choosing a method
Flow measurements
These topics are described in the UK sections 4.9. The Danish approach for addressing these
topics does not deviate from the UK approach.
Inspection of conditions in permissions is in Denmark allocated to the authorities issuing
permissions, which in accordance with the Environment Protection Law, Chapter 923 means
the municipalities and EPA. There are no specifically appointed institutions or authorities
doing only inspection and compliance assessments.
Inspection and compliance assessments are considered as an integrated routine activity in
public administration in the municipalities and EPA. One reason is, that all abstraction and
discharge permissions contain requirements on sampling, monitoring and reporting
obligations as a self-control activity, which most often is delegated to independent, accredited
firms, institutions and laboratories specialised in technical and environmental supervision and
reporting.
The authorities have an obligation to do active inspection, but to some extent the compliance
assessments is a desk job based on comparison of reported information and specified
requirements of permissions – unless violation of conditions in a permission appears. In
addition non-conformance with requirements of permissions very often turns up in
consequence of complaints from the public and not necessarily as a result of site visits by the
authority.
If any illegal or unpermitted activity is detected it is the obligation of supervising authority to
see to that the activity is legalised. In that context the authority may for example
Forbid the continuing operations of a facility
Order that the illegal conditions and associated effects shall be restored
Initiate restoration activities at the expenses of the offender
Change the conditions for future operation of facilities
23
Law on Protection of the Environment, LBK nr 879, 26.06.2010.
Task A07-1
China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 90
Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013
5.8 Enforcement
Enforcement procedures for permissions are in Danish law supported by a broad spectrum of
possible sanctions as indicated above. The legal background is laid down in the
Environmental Protection Law, Chapter 9, 9a and 10 and a comprehensive guideline
document24.
Generally, the procedures for enforcement of violated conditions in water related permissions
with special reference to discharge permissions are scaled according to the level of the illegal
activities and the degree of the readiness of the offender to remediate intended or unintended
impacts from an illegal activity.
5.8.1 Admonition
An admonition (a warning in UK) procedure is applied, when a minor violation of conditions in
a permission is discovered. It is forwarded by the authority in writing and it is the mildest and
most frequently applied enforcement procedure. The admonition will include a deadline for
correcting the illegal activity. If such a dead-line is not observed other enforcement procedures
shall be taken into account.
An admonition does not change the judicial rights and obligations in an existing permission
and accordingly the offender does not have access to any appeal court
5.8.2 Enforcement order
An enforcement order is applied when an authority discovers activities, which from the
judgements of the authority, represent a risk for severe pollution or impacts in the environment
without being illegal. It means that the authority, using an enforcement order, tightens the
conditions and limits, or renew an existing permissions whereby the judicial rights and
obligations of a permission are changed and can be taken to the appeal court by the owner of
the permission.
If the new conditions in a permissions cannot be fulfilled the enforcement order can be used as
background for prohibiting further operation of the facility.
5.8.3 Enjoinment
An enjoinment is an enforcement procedure in case severe violations in permissions are
discovered. An enjoinment procedure does not include changes to the judicial rights and
obligations of permissions and can for that reason not be brought to an appeal court. An
enjoinment procedure may be initiated in continuation of an admonition procedure in case
compliance dead-lines are neglected for remediation of illegal conditions.
24
Guidelines on Enforcement of the Environmental Protection Law. Guidelines from DEPA, nr. 6, 2005
Task A07-1
China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 91
Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013
If the requirements of an enjoinment are neglected beyond the dead-line, then the next step in
severe cases of violation of permissions may be involvement of the police and the civil court
system and ultimately prohibition of further operation of the facility.
5.8.4 Self-help activities
In addition to issuing administrative orders with the consequences described above the
authority may initiate self-help activities whereby remediation measures are implemented at
the expense of the offender. In self-help situations the police may be involved to ensure
access to facilities and protection of the labour force, but as the offender must be informed by
the authority in writing before self-help activities are initiated, he/she will normally take over the
obligations without further discussions. In consequence initiated self-help activities are not
very often initiated by the authorities. Exceptions may be related to abandoned or liquidated
firms, whether they are still holding permissions or not.
However, in two situations there is an obligation for the authorities to initiate self-help activities
without warning or further discussions:
In case an immediate and imminent threat to human health and society arise as
a consequence of violation of conditions in a permission
In case immediate mitigation measures are required to prevent severe pollution
and its distribution as a consequence of violation of conditions in a permission
5.8.5 Loss of environmental liability
A preventive enforcement initiative in Denmark is related to the concept: Loss of
environmental liability. Loss of environmental liability means that companies or single persons
with environmental management responsibilities are black-listed and consequently cannot or
only with difficulties or under rigorous conditions can apply for permissions.
Enterprises and persons who have lost environmental liability are registered with Ministry of
Environment for a period of 10 years. Criteria for registration of persons are described in the
Environment Protection Law §110 b, but also people convicted after Code of Penal Law §196.
Convictions after the Penal Law refers to persons who have been taken to court for very
severe violations of the Environment Law. Other persons in the register have been fined for
10,000 kr. or more or have been to jail for violating the Environment Law. The last group of
environmental offenders is people, who have a debt of 100.000 kr., without being amortised, to
the public as a consequence of initiation of self-help activities by an environmental authority.
Task A07-1
China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 92
Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013
6 Chinese Approach to Water Regulation
6.1 Chinese Legal Framework-Water Protection and Regulation
The Water Law 2002 (WL02) is the basic law on water affairs. In addition to the Water law
2002, specific laws and administrative rules and regulations are formulated according to
different needs and situations, local rules and regulations are also to be worked out in the light
of local conditions, thus forming a relatively comprehensive water-related legal system, which
can be easily enforced. The legal framework has four levels:
• Laws on water affairs issued by the National People’s Congress;
• Administrative regulations on water matters issued by the State Council;
• Ministerial rules and regulations issued by the Ministry of Water Resources, Ministry of
Environmental Protection, or other related ministries;
• Local and provincial rules and regulations issued by local people’s congress and
governments of provinces, autonomous regions and municipalities directly under the
central government.
The Water Law of People’s Republic of China (The Water Law 2002) is the fundamental law
for regulation of water related activities. It declares that exploitation and utilization of water
resources should be carried out under the principle of “Overall planning, consideration to all
concerned, comprehensively utilizing, pursuing the benefits”. It sets up a water rights licensing
system along with a compensation system, and marked the transition from a development
phase focused almost exclusively on infrastructure development to a phase where attention
was switched to the management and protection of water resources.
The Law on Administrative Licenses (by National People's Congress in 2003) is the governing
law for the granting and management of water abstraction permits. This law made clear
stipulations on many aspects of administrative permit, such as granting, responsible
authorities and procedures, application procedures, examination and decisions, duration,
hearing, amendment and renewal, special stipulations, fees, supervision and examination,
and legal liabilities.
Task A07-1
China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 93
Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013
The Law on Prevention and Control of Water Pollution provides for the formulation of
standards for water environment quality and pollutant discharge, supervision and
management over prevention and control of water pollution, prevention of surface water and
groundwater pollution, legal liabilities, etc.
The Regulation on Water Abstraction Permits and Water Resource Fee Collection (by the
State Council in 2006) includes provisions on water abstraction applications and acceptance,
examination and decisions of water abstraction permits, water resources fee collection and
use management, supervision and management, and legal liabilities.
The Management Methods on Water Function Zones (in 2003) provides for many aspects of
water function zones, such as definitions, grading, division, legal force, supervision and
management, assessment of conservation, inspection of pollutant admittance capacity,
cooperation with departments of environment conservation, water quality monitoring,
announcements and circulars, water quality management of construction projects,
management of river-entry pollutant discharge outlets, and legal liabilities.
Table 6.1.1 Chinese legal framework on water protection and regulation
Level Category Policies, laws and regulations
National
level
Laws • Water Law of the People's Republic of China;
• Environmental Protection Law of the People's Republic of
China;
• The Administrative Permit Law (P.R.C.);
• The Law on Administrative Licenses;
• Law of the People's Republic of China on Prevention and
Control of Water Pollution;
• Flood Control Law of the People's Republic of China;
• Law of the People’s Republic of China on Environmental
Impact Assessment;
• Marine Environment Protection Law of the People's Republic
of China.
Administrative
Rules and
Regulations
• Hydrological Ordinance of People's Republic of China;
• Rules for Implementing the Law on Water Pollution;
Prevention and Control;
• Regulations on Management of water abstraction Permit and
Water Resources Charges;
• Measures for Implementing Water Administrative Licensing;
• Regulations on River Administration of People's Republic of
China; Regulations on Effluent Fees’ Collection, Usage and
Management;
• Regulation on Environmental Protection Management for
Construction Projects;
• Regulations on Prevention of Environment Pollution by Ship
Scraping;
• Measures for Implementing the Permit System for Water
Abstraction;
• Measures on the Administration of Water Resources;
Demonstration of Construction Projects;
Task A07-1
China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 94
Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013
• Regulations Governing the Licensing for Water Drawing and
the Levying for Water Resource Fees;
• Provisional Measures for the Administration of the Water
Pollutant Discharge Permit
Department
Regulations &
Regulatory
Documents
• Interim Measures for Water Allocation;
• Measures for Managing Water-Drawing Permit;
• Measures for River Discharge Outlet Supervision and
Management;
• Interim Measures for Administration of Water Pollutants
Discharge Permit;
• Measures for Administration of Pollution Sources Monitoring;
• Measures for Managing Offshore Environment Functional
Division;
• Regulations on Prevention and Control of Environment
Pollution by Shipping in Inland Waters of The P.R.C;
• Measures for Implementing Water Administrative Licensing;
• Measures for Management of Water Function Zones;
• Regulations on Managing Water-drawing Permit and Water
Quality;
• Measures for Prevention and Settlement of Interprovincial
Water Disputes;
• Interim Measures for Reporting Major Water Pollution
Incidents;
• Notice on Strengthening River Discharge Outlet Supervision
and Management;
• Policy of Sewage Prevention Technology for Printing and
Dyeing Industry;
• Technical Policy of Municipal Solid Waste Treatment and
Pollution Prevention;
• Notice on Granting Water Resources Commission of Haihe
River Right to managing water abstraction Permit.
Basin level Regulatory
Documents
• Measures for Administration of Water Dispatching of the
Yellow River;
• the Measures for the Administration of Key Water Pollutant
Discharge Permit for the Huai River and Tai Lake Basins;
• Provision on the System of Administrative Law-enforcement
Responsibilities of the Water Resources Commission of Haihe
River;
• Notice on Enhanced Supervision and Management of Water
Resources Evaluation of Construction Project in Haihe River
Basin and water abstraction Permit;
• Covenant on Coordinating Water Affairs along Provincial
Borders in Haihe River Basin.
Local level Administrative
Rules
• the Beijing Provisional Regulation on the Administration of
Pollutant Discharge Permit;
• Ordinance on Environment Protection in Tianjin Municipality;
• Ordinance on Prevention and Control of Water Source;
• Pollution Diverted from Luanhe River in Tianjin Municipality;
• Ordinance on Water Resources Management in Beijing;
• Ordinance on Environment Protection Management for
Construction Projects in Hebei province;
• Measures for Managing water abstraction Permit in Shandong
Province;
• Ordinance on Water Pollution Prevention and Control in
Shandong Province;
• Ordinance on Water Conservation Management in Henan
Province.
Government • Measures for Preventing Water Pollution in Tianjin
Municipality;
Task A07-1
China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 95
Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013
Regulations
and
Regulatory
documents
• Regulations on Water Conservation in Beijing;
• Measures for Managing water abstraction Permit in Hebei
Province;
• Interim Measures for the Administration of Urban
Groundwater Resources in Hebei Province;
• Rules on Water Administration and Supervision in Henan
Province;
• Rules for Implementing Environment impact Approval Level by
Level for Construction Projects in Tianjin;
• Notice on the Planning of Water Pollution Prevention and
Control in Tianjin Municipality, Haihe River Basin;
• Water Pollutant Discharge Standard (Pilot) in Beijing;
• Notice of Beijing People’s Government on Intensified
Management of Groundwater Resources through Delimiting
Groundwater Excess, Over and Properly Exploited Regions in
Plain Areas in Beijing;
• Notice Issued by General Office of People’s Government in
Hebei Province on Problems in Water Management;
• Measures for Investigating Law Enforcement Liabilities of
Environment Protection Bureau in Hebei Province;
• Measures for Handling Environment Pollution Disputes in
Shandong Province;
• Regulations on Managing Watercourse Sand Quarrying in
Henan Province.
6.2 Key Ministries-Roles and Responsibilities
The current institutional system of water resources management involves multiple government
agencies at different levels as shown in Table 6.2.1 and Figure 6.2.1. There are 8 central
government agencies that hold certain responsibilities of water resources management. On
the local level, the subordinate departments of these agencies, as well as certain local
governmental offices all play a role in water resources management.
• Inconsistent policies and conflicting interests among different ministries on water and their
lack of cooperation actually weaken water resources management, instead of building a
combined force to increase the efficiency of water administration.
• Although these ministries are entrusted with the administrative power related to water, their
responsibilities are not clearly defined and there are significant overlaps, as illustrated for
those of MWR and Ministry of Environmental Protection (MEP) Table 6.2.2.
• The lack of effective coordination and cooperation among these administrative units
impedes effective management of water resources and significantly increases the
administrative transaction costs.
Table 6.2.1 Water-related government agencies under the State Council and their functions in
water resources management (after Feng et al. 2006)
Department Scope of water administration Major responsibilities
National Development
and Reform
Commission (NDRC)
Supervision of the planning of water
resources development and
ecosystem building.
Guidance on the planning of water
resources development, allocation
of production force and ecological
Task A07-1
China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 96
Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013
environment construction,
coordination of the planning and
policy of agriculture, forest and
water resources development.
Ministry of Water
Resources (MWR)
Surface and ground water
management, river basin
management, flood control, water
and soil conservation.
Water resources survey and
assessment, planning of water
development and conservation,
flood control, water and soil
conservation, designation of water
function zones, unified water
resources administration.
Ministry of
Environmental
Protection (MEP)
Prevention and control of water
pollution.
Water environment protection,
water environment function zoning,
establishment of national water
environment quality standards and
national pollutant discharge
standards.
Ministry of Housing
and Urban-Rural
Development
(MHURD)
Urban and industrial water use,
urban water supply and drainage.
Planning, construction and
management of water supply
projects, drainage and sewage
disposal projects, urban water
conservation.
Ministry of Agriculture
(MOA)
Agricultural water uses and fishery
habitat protection.
Construction and management of
irrigation infrastructure, irrigation
water conservation, non-point
source pollution control, protection
of aquacultural environment,
aquatic environmental
conservation.
State Forest
Administration (SFA)
Water resources conservation. Forest protection and management
for protecting watershed ecology
and water resources.
Ministry of Transport
(MOT)
Pollution control related to
navigation of ships on rivers.
Pollution control and management
of inland navigation.
Ministry of Health
(MOH)
Supervision and management of
environmental health.
Supervision and management of the
drinking water standards.
Task A07-1
China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 97
Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013
Figure 6.2.1 China’s institutional arrangement related to water resources management (after
Khan and Liu 2008)
Table 6.2.2 Major overlaps and intersections of responsibilities undertaken by MWR and MEP
on water resources protection and administration (adapted from Feng et al., 2006)
Responsibility Ministries involved Major overlaps in functions
Water pollution control
MWR and MEP Both are involved in developing and
designating water environment function
zones
Both are involved in defining the relationship
between the capacity of a water body to
accept pollutants and the prevention of
pollution of the watershed
Both have the responsibility of water quality
monitoring
Coordination and
management of
trans-boundary pollution
control
MWR and MEP MEP has administrative authority and
responsibility to guide and coordinate the
trans-regional environmental problem and
pollution disputes
Carrying the responsibility of watercourse
management, MWR also has the power to
manage and coordinate trans-boundary water
pollution disputes
Task A07-1
China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 98
Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013
Enforcement of laws and
regulations and
supervision of water
management
MWR and MEP Both have the responsibility for regulating
pollutant discharges in river basins
Both have the authority to establish plans,
policies and regulations, to enforce
regulations, and to supervise the enforcement
of laws and regulations
Urban water resources
use, protection and
management
MWR, MEP and
MHURD
MWR and MEP both have the responsibility
on development, protection and management
of urban water resources
MHURD is responsible for urban
infrastructure construction projects related to
the development of water resources and the
protection of the water environment,
including pipeline construction for water
supply, drainage and sewers
All three ministries hold responsibilities
regarding water supply, urban water
recycling, drainage and sewerage handling
and discharge monitoring
6.3 Roles of Provinces and River Basin Authorities
The central government allocated and managed water with a hierarchical administrative
system through water-related departments at various levels. The people’s government of a
province, autonomous region, or municipality directly under the Central Government may,
determine the specific order sequence on the various items of water use. The drainage basin
administration authorities shall, in accordance with the present Regulation and upon the
authorization by the competent department of the water administration of the State Council,
take charge of organizing and implementing, supervising and administering the license system
of water drawing within their respective jurisdictional scopes (SCD460, article 3).
One significant step forward is the restructuring of China’s water administration system from a
multi-sector administration into a more unified one (2002 Water Law, article 12). As a result,
approvals of abstraction licenses are now solely administered by the MWR and its WRBs. This
has ended the long-term bureaucratic conflicts and has improved efficiency in
decision-making.
Seven river basin management committees (RBMCs) have been given more administrative
authorities (2002 Water Law, article 48), and they were given greater authority in allocation and
centralized control over all diversion projects. In reality, obscure delineation of authority and
responsibilities among government agencies involved in water resources management at
different levels undermines the ability of basin commissions to allocate water resources,
coordinate water resources exploitation and conservation, and enforce water resources
planning at the basin level. Instead, water resources administration is largely based on political
boundaries rather than on watersheds. However, legislation does not provide a legal basis for
the seven river basin management committees (RBMCs) to integrate an effective institutional
process. This can be seen from several aspects:
Task A07-1
China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 99
Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013
• RMBCs’ administrative rights are rigorously restricted to those prescribed by legislation.
The 2002 Water Law stated that China’s water resources management is a combination of
jurisdictional management and river basin management. In other words, RBMCs have to
share river basin management authority and responsibilities with provincial governments.
Fundamental authorities such as fixing levels of abstraction charges and collecting them,
distributing funds to protect water resources, supervising or penalizing negative
abstraction activities are not given to RBMCs.
• RBMCs can only approve or reject plans of abstraction from main streams of the rivers, but
have no authority over abstraction from tributaries or ground sources. Such an approach
does little to facilitate integrated river basin management, because it runs counter to the
principle that main streams, tributaries and groundwater sources in a river basin are closely
interrelated.
• RBMCs lack an inherent system to share and discuss critical information on abstraction
with provincial governments, such as the annual amount of abstraction licenses given by
local authorities. As a result, it is nearly impossible for RMBCs to enforce systems of total
abstraction quantity control.
• Current legislation does not enable RBMCs to establish a commission of stakeholders from
provincial, prefectural and county levels, or have consultative mechanisms to bring in
voices of communities and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). This greatly reduces
the benefits of public supervision and participation in river basin management.
6.4 Three red Lines
On 12 January 2012, the State Council released the Opinions on Implementing the Strictest
Water Resources Management System, which is the overall layout and specific arrangements
that the State Council has made since the 2011 No.1 Document and the Central Work
Conference on Water Conservancy explicitly required the implementation of the strictest water
resources management system, and a principal document guiding water-related efforts in
China at present and for a period to come. The document states the necessity of implementing
a strict water resources control system, and explicitly specifies the main measures to be taken
in three Red Lines-control of the development and use of water resources, control of water
use efficiency, and restriction of pollutants in water functional areas.
The control targets for the "Three Red Lines" include controlling total quantity of water
consumption nationwide within 700billion m3 by 2030, attaining or approaching the world
advanced level of water use efficiency, reducing water consumption per RMB10,000 industrial
value added to below 40 m3 and raising effective water use coefficient of farmland irrigation
water to above 0.6 by 2030, and controlling total quantity of major pollutants discharged into
rivers and lakes within the pollutant absorption capacity of the water function areas and raising
water quality compliance rate in such areas to higher than 95% by 2030.
Task A07-1
China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 100
Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013
To attain the above targets and with reference made to the12th Five-Year Plan for National
Economic and Social Development, No. 1 Document of 2011, the four systems should be
constructed:
• First, the total amount of water control.
• Strengthen the control red line management of water resources development and
utilization, strict implementation of the total water control to include strict planning and
management and the water resources assessment, take strict control of the river
basin and regional total water use, strict implementation of water licensing, strict
compensation for the use of water resources, strict groundwater management
protection, strengthen the unified control of water resources.
• The second is the efficiency of water control systems.
• Enhance the efficiency of water use to control the red line management, and
comprehensively promote the construction of water-saving society, including the
overall strengthening of the management of water conservation, water conservation
throughout the economic and social development and the life of the masses the whole
production process, strengthen the water quota management, speeding up saving
technological transformation.
• Third, water function area limit assimilative system.
• Strengthen water functional areas to limit pollutant carrying red line management,
strictly control the total amount of emissions into rivers and lakes, including strict
supervision and management of the water function area, to strengthen the protection
of drinking water sources, and to promote the protection and restoration of aquatic
ecosystems.
• Fourth, water resource management responsibilities and appraisal system.
• The development and utilization of water resources, conservation and protection of
the main indicators into local economic and social development of a comprehensive
evaluation system, the main person in charge of the people's government at or above
the county level is the overall responsibility of the administrative area of water
resources management and protection work.
On 2 January 2013, the State Council promulgated the Assessment Method for Implementing
the Strictest Water Resources Management System, attaining the control targets for the
"Three Red Lines" Table 6.4.1, 6.4.2 and 6.4.3.
Table 6.4.1 The control targets of total quantity of water consumption (108 m3)
Provinces, Autonomous Regions, or
Municipalities 2015 2020 2030
Beijing 40.00 46.58 51.56
Tianjin 27.50 38.00 42.20
Hebei 217.80 221.00 246.00
Shanxi 76.40 93.00 99.00
Inner Mongolian 199.00 211.57 236.25
Task A07-1
China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 101
Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013
Liaoning 158.00 160.60 164.58
Jining 141.55 165.49 178.35
Heilongjiang 353.00 353.34 370.05
Shanghai 122.07 129.35 133.52
Jiangshu 508.00 524.15 527.68
Zhejiang 229.49 244.40 254.67
Anhui 273.45 270.84 276.75
Fujian 215.00 223.00 233.00
Jiangxi 250.00 260.00 264.63
Shandong 250.60 276.59 301.84
Henan 260.00 282.15 302.78
Hubei 315.51 365.91 368.91
Hunan 344.00 359.75 359.77
Guangdong 457.61 456.04 450.18
Guangxi 304.00 309.00 314.00
Hainan 49.40 50.30 56.00
Chongqing 94.06 97.13 105.58
Sichuan 273.14 321.64 339.43
Guizhou 117.35 134.39 143.33
Yunnan 184.88 214.63 226.82
Xizang 35.79 36.89 39.77
Shaanxi 102.00 112.92 125.51
Gansu 124.80 114.15 125.63
Qinghai 37.00 37.95 47.54
Ningxia 73.00 73.27 87.93
Xinjiang 515.60 515.97 526.74
National 6350.00 6700.00 7000.00
Table 6.4.2 The control targets of water use efficiency
Provinces,
Autonomous Regions,
or Municipalities
2015
Reducing the 2010 level of water
consumption per RMB10,000
industrial value added
Effective water use
coefficient of farmland
irrigation water
Beijing 25% 0.710
Task A07-1
China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 102
Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013
Tianjin 25% 0.664
Hebei 27% 0.667
Shanxi 27% 0.524
Inner Mongolian 27% 0.501
Liaoning 27% 0.587
Jining 30% 0.550
Heilongjiang 35% 0.588
Shanghai 30% 0.734
Jiangshu 30% 0.580
Zhejiang 27% 0.581
Anhui 35% 0.515
Fujian 35% 0.530
Jiangxi 35% 0.477
Shandong 25% 0.630
Henan 35% 0.600
Hubei 35% 0.496
Hunan 35% 0.490
Guangdong 30% 0.474
Guangxi 33% 0.450
Hainan 35% 0.562
Chongqing 33% 0.478
Sichuan 33% 0.450
Guizhou 35% 0.446
Yunnan 30% 0.445
Xizang 30% 0.414
Shaanxi 25% 0.550
Gansu 30% 0.540
Qinghai 25% 0.489
Ningxia 27% 0.480
Xinjiang 25% 0.520
National 30% 0.530
Table 6.4.3 The control targets of water quality compliance rate in key water function areas of
rivers and lakes
Task A07-1
China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 103
Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013
Provinces, Autonomous Regions, or
Municipalities 2015 2020 2030
Beijing 50% 77% 95%
Tianjin 27% 61% 95%
Hebei 55% 75% 95%
Shanxi 53% 73% 95%
Inner Mongolian 52% 71% 95%
Liaoning 50% 78% 95%
Jining 41% 69% 95%
Heilongjiang 38% 70% 95%
Shanghai 53% 78% 95%
Jiangshu 62% 82% 95%
Zhejiang 62% 78% 95%
Anhui 71% 80% 95%
Fujian 81% 86% 95%
Jiangxi 88% 91% 95%
Shandong 59% 78% 95%
Henan 56% 75% 95%
Hubei 78% 85% 95%
Hunan 85% 91% 95%
Guangdong 68% 83% 95%
Guangxi 86% 90% 95%
Hainan 89% 95% 95%
Chongqing 78% 85% 95%
Sichuan 77% 83% 95%
Guizhou 77% 85% 95%
Yunnan 75% 87% 95%
Xizang 90% 95% 95%
Shaanxi 69% 82% 95%
Gansu 65% 82% 95%
Qinghai 74% 88% 95%
Ningxia 62% 79% 95%
Xinjiang 85% 90% 95%
National 60% 80% 95%
Task A07-1
China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 104
Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013
6.5 Water Protection Zones (Water Functional Area)
Water functional zone is the basis for water resources development and protection and is
shown in Figure 6.5.1. The fundamental goal of the water function zoning in China is to
distinguish different parts of the river or lake and make a clear division of control targets on the
basis of water’s natural features, social services, and ecological functions (China Ministry of
Water Resources, 2007). The State Council has officially approved the National Water
Function Zoning in Major Rivers and Lakes. Through the integrated quantity-quality
assessment of available water resources in water functional zone, different water quantity,
quality, pollutant capacity and the quantity of pollutant reduction etc. can be provided, which is
beneficial for water administration to finely control water quantity and quality, define important
protection zone and improve the distribution of water resources in different water functional
zones.
Water function zoning is to reasonably regionalize the whole basin according to certain
indicators and standards based on natural properties (resource status, environmental
conditions and geographic location) and social attributes (utilization level of water resources,
demand of social advancement on water quality and quantity) of water resources. At present,
China’s water function zones are divided into Grade 1 Water Function Zone and Grade 2
Water Function Zone for the purpose of management. Among them, Grade 1 Water Function
Zone falls into four types: protection zone, buffer zone, development & utilization zone and
preservation zone; in Grade 2 Water Function Zone, the development & utilization zone is
further classified into 7 sub-types: zone for potable water resource, industrial use, agriculture
use, commercial fishery, landscape and recreational use, transition zone and sewage
discharge control zone. Grade 1 division aims to adjust relationship between water resources
utilization and protection in macroscopic view, considering regional coordination and
sustainable development. The fundamental purpose of subdivision is to determine the
functions of water, and coordinate the relationship between different sectors.
China has divided its major rivers and lakes into nearly 4,500 water functional areas, and carry
out differentiated protection and management of different water areas, according to a division
plan approved by the State Council and released by the Ministry of Water Resources. The
ministry aims to increase the proportion of water functional areas meeting national water
quality standards to 80 percent by 2020 and to nearly 100 percent by 2030.
Task A07-1
China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 105
Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013
Figure 6.5.1 Water function zoning system
6.6 Current Permits
6.6.1 How are they set/modelled and river need calculations?
The system for issuing and managing permits has been revised following SCD460. Permits will
now be issued on the basis of a more systematic assessment of water resources, with the
intention that the permitted volume should be no greater than the sustainable resource. This
requires assessment of water resources through water monitoring and modelling; the issuance
and enforcement of permits; and the adjustment of annual allocations until a sustainable
situation is reached.
6.6.2 Environmental Flow
The water regime is the most important factor that shapes freshwater ecosystems. China’s
2002 Water Law requires that the water planning process “pay attention to maintaining the
rational river flow and the rational water level of lakes, reservoirs and groundwater and to
maintaining the natural purification capacity of water system”. All aspects of the flow regime
are potentially important to the environment and this natural variability needs to be accounted
for in allocating and managing water resources. The development and utilisation of water
resources must be balanced with the impacts on the natural environment and the various
goods and services that rivers provide to society. This balancing act is now a fundamental
element of water resources planning, allocation, and management. It affects decisions on
where water infrastructure will be built, how it will be operated, and generally how much water
can be abstracted for consumptive purposes. These decisions need to be made with an
understanding and consideration of the impacts on environmentally important flows.
The volume of water available for abstraction is then the difference between the total water
resources available and the environmental flow. Importantly, environmental flow requirements
can vary significantly between different types of rivers and these differences need to be
Task A07-1
China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 106
Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013
understood and allowed for in river management. The requirements for successfully providing
environmental flows will vary significantly depending on the political, environmental, and water
resource development context. The implementation of environmental flows requires managing
water resources to provide and protect those flows identified as important during the water
resource assessment process. This can require regulation of some or all of the following:
• the total volume of water allowed to be abstracted from the river: which will determine the
share of the total volume that is retained within the river to meet environmental
requirements.
• the timing, rate and antecedent conditions that govern water abstractions or releases:
which will influence the pattern of the flow regime.
• the design of in-stream infrastructure: which will influence the extent to which infrastructure
is physically able to achieve the desired operational releases (e.g. based on the capacity of
reservoir gates) and minimise impacts on connectivity (e.g. through fish ladders).
• the location of in-stream infrastructure: which can be located so as to minimize the
disturbance of key ecological assets, loss of connectivity and adverse impacts on flow
regimes.
The current approach in China is to assign water allocations on the basis of average water
resource availability. This means that half the time, there is insufficient water available to meet
all the allocations in full, so that some degree of rationing will be required. Water allocations
should therefore be made on the basis of the water resources available with a return period of
1 in 10 years.
Where the rules are so defined, this can remove the need to consider environmental
requirements on a case-by case basis. Provided the allocation, abstraction, and management
rules have been carefully specified, compliance with the rules should ensure that the required
flows are provided and the broader environmental outcomes are achieved.
6.6.3 Water Drawing Permits
Legislative requirements for permitting
The Water Law 2002 (WL02) lays down the requirement for a water
withdrawal/drawing/abstraction permit system (WAPS) and for water resources fees (WRFs)
based on volumetric measurement. The regulations are given in State Council Decree of PRC
No. 460 of 2006, “Regulation for Water Drawing Permit and Collection and Management of
Water Resources Fee”. In August 2006 the DWR/MWR issued a detailed report entitled
“Practical Procedures for Water Drawing Permit and Collection and Management of Water
Resources Fee” with new permit and registry forms, and instructions and procedures to
complement SCD 460. MWR is in the process of approving five sets of measures to implement
SCD 460. The “Measures for Administration of Water Abstraction Permits” was issued with
MWR Decree 34 in April 2008.
Task A07-1
China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 107
Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013
SCD 460 lays down the general regulations for strengthening management and protection of
water resources, and promoting the conservation and rational development and utilization of
water resources in accordance with the provisions of the Water Law of the People’s Republic
of China) [Article 1].
In the present context, the key requirement is that:
In order to draw water, any unit or individual shall apply for a water drawing permit
and pay water resources fee [Article 2].
The decree goes on to state the need for the permits to take of a comprehensive water
resources assessment, so that the total permitted volume does not exceed the exploitable
resources or the local water allocation plan:
“Article 6 Implementation of the water drawing permit system must accord with
comprehensive water resources plans, comprehensive river basin plans, mid to long
term water demand and supply plans and water function zoning plans, and abide by
water allocation plans approved in accordance with provisions of the Water Law; if
the water allocation plan has not been formulated, the water allocation agreement
signed between local people’s governments shall be observed.
Article 7 In implementation of the water drawing permit system, consideration shall
be given to both surface water and groundwater, and to the principles of combining
water supply expansion with water conservation, with priority given to conservation,
and combining total amount control with quota based management.
The total amount of water consumption with approved water drawings in a river basin shall
not exceed the amount of exploitable water resources in the river basin”.
The details of the requirements for permitting are laid down more explicitly in “Measures for
Administration of Water Abstraction Permits” issued with MWR Decree 34 (April 9, 2008). This
states that:
• The total permitted amount of water abstraction in a river basin must not exceed the
utilizable amount of water resources in the river basin as approved by the state.
• The total permitted amount of water abstraction in an administrative jurisdiction must not
exceed the amount of water abstraction approved at the next upper level (Article 4).
The granting of permits for the use of water
According to the provisions of SCD 460, water use permit applicants shall file their
applications directly to the water use permit review and approval authorities. Permits are
issued with a five-year validity, and will then need to be renewed. See Figure 6.6.3. This
renewal process will essentially be the same as the initial issuance, although much of the
data will be unchanged. The review will take account of updated assessments of water
resource availability, and changes in cropping, irrigation methods and other related factors.
Typically, the process which results in the grant - or denial - by the government of a permit for
the use of water is structured in the legislation as a sequence of steps, as follows:
• filing of an application;
• review of applications;
Task A07-1
China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 108
Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013
• deciding on applications;
• formatting of permits;
• recording of decisions and permits;
• appealing from adverse decisions.
Figure 6.6.3 The granting of permits for the use of water
If approved, the approval documents should include details of:
• Water volumes and qualities, purposes of water abstraction, abstraction quantities and
their corresponding availability probabilities;
• Locations where water is returned, quantity and quality of return flow;
• Water use quotas and the relevant water saving requirements;
• Requirements for water measurement;
• Measures for restricting water abstraction under special conditions;
• Arrangements for issuance of water abstraction permits.
Content of the Water License
Examples of Water Licence are shown in Figure 6.6.4.
Article 24 of the Water Abstraction Permit Regulation details the required contents of a Water
License. This includes:
• name of the water abstraction unit or individual (surname and first name);
Submitting Applications
Complete and meet legal requirement
Acceptance for application
Public interests involved?
Others interests involved?
Approval or not within 45 d
Decisions on the License
Construction starting
Examination after 30d
License granted
5 d Acceptance for application
refused
No t fall within the scope of acceptance
Incomplete or unclear
N
N
N
Y
Y
Y
Valid term :3 a without
construction
Applicationprocess Hearing/inquiry
Inform others
Reasons given
okN
Modification procedureIssuing
process
Task A07-1
China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 109
Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013
• duration for water abstraction;
• water abstraction volume and water abstraction purposes;
• type of water sources;
• water abstraction location, discharging location, discharging method and volume.
Figure 6.6.4 Examples of water abstraction permit
Water resource assessment
Water resources assessment (WRA) is the process of measuring, collecting and analysing
relevant parameters on the quantity and quality of water resources for the purposes of a better
development and management of water resources. This is shown diagrammatically in Figure
6.6.5
Conducting water resources assessment helps clarifying the following issues:
• Current status of water resources at different scales, including inter-and intra-annual
variability;
• Current water use (including variability), and the resulting societal and environmental
Task A07-1
China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 110
Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013
trade-offs;
• Scale related externalities, especially when patterns of water use are considered over a
range of temporal and spatial scales;
• Social and institutional factors affecting access to water and their reliability;
• Opportunities for saving or making more productive, efficient and/or equitable;
• Efficacy and transparency of existing water-related policies and decision making
processes;
• Conflicts between existing information sets, and the overall accuracy of government (and
other) statistics.
Figure 6.6.5 Components of Water Resources Assessment (Adapted from UNESCO and
WMO 1997)
Management of permits
Water allocation decisions are crystallised in permits, but are not cast in concrete as a result.
Circumstances may change. The government department or agency in charge of
administering the permit system has to be in a position to react to change, and to adjust
permits to the new circumstances:
• A new national or regional water master plan may come into being, requiring adjustments
in the water resources allocation pattern as crystallized in as many permits as are in
operation at any given point in time.
• A prospective user may seek water which has already been allocated under a permit. If the
utilization applied for is regarded by the government decision maker as preferable to the
one which already exists, it may be necessary to sacrifice the latter.
• A drought or other emergency may strike, forcing the government to curtail allocations
under the existing permits.
• The permit holder himself may request that his permit be amended in certain respects, or
Task A07-1
China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 111
Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013
he may decide to relinquish it before its expiration date. On expiration of his permit, a
permit holder may wish to have it continue for an additional term.
Such machinery typically consists of:
• The review and variation of the terms and conditions of permits;
• The suspension or cancellation of a permit under given circumstances including, in
particular, for breach of legal provisions;
• The renewal of permits on expiration;
• And the transfer of a permit from one water user to another.
Problems in water abstraction permitting
Up to 2011, there were about 440,000 water drawing permits in China. The procedures
required by the national and provincial regulations are well-defined and sound. Implementation
of the permits, however, may not be entirely straightforward, because of the huge number of
permits, the accuracy of water resource assessments, the administrative systems, and the
difficulties of ensuring compliance with the permits.
• Insufficient standard in water abstraction permitting
• Water abstracted for agriculture in most areas have not been included in water
permitting system;
• No water resource assessment in some permits;
• The utilization efficiency of water resources have not been included in the water
license management;
• Total amount of water over approved;
• The total amount of water permitted shall not exceed the utilizable amount of water
resources of the drainage basin concerned, but the daily and seasonal variation is not
considered.
• Insufficient supervision and administration
• Daily supervision and management is not in place;
• Insufficient inspection and examination of the permit;
• A high percentage of water users that remain un-metered;
• Metering of groundwater in particular is very limited;
• Lack of permit audit.
• Low level of information technology in water abstraction permit management:
• As information systems are still paper-based and copies of permits are held in various
locations, it is increasingly difficult to maintain good record keeping standards;
• Water permit account system is still in construction;
• Lack of information sharing;
• Less release of water abstraction information.
Task A07-1
China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 112
Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013
6.6.4 Water Pollution/Water Quality Permits
The pollutant discharge permit system is one of the principal methods of controlling pollution in
China.
• The permit system applies from the time prior to the pollutant discharge to the time after the
discharge. Therefore, it applies not only to pollution prevention, but also to the processing
and monitoring of pollution as well as to the administration of post-pollution remedies.
• The pollutant discharge permit system applies individually and collectively with other
pollution control laws to enhance the effectiveness of pollution regulation.
• The pollutant discharge permit system drafts forceful administrative regulations by
ensuring that its procedures have clear criteria, and that the system conforms to the
modern spirit of the law.
• The strict procedures implemented by the pollutant discharge permit system are necessary
to ensure that the environmental authorities supervise an enterprise's pollution discharge
and constrain the environmental authorities' discretion.
China's pollutant discharge permit system establishes the goal of improving environmental
quality by focusing on the total quantity control of the pollutant. It consists of the following four
main components:
• Polluter registration;
• Planning and distribution of pollution discharge indexes;
• Application, approval, and issuance of pollutant discharge permits;
• Supervision and inspection of the implementation of pollutant discharge permits.
Typically, the grant-or refusal-by the government of a waste discharge permit is the resultant of
a process which is structured in the legislation as a sequence of steps – Figure 6.6.6, as
follows:
• Fulfilling requirements precedent to the filing of applications
• Filing of applications
• Review of applications
• Deciding on applications
• Formatting of waste discharge permits
• Appealing from adverse decisions
• Recording of decisions and permits
Task A07-1
China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 113
Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013
Figure 6.6.6. The granting of permits for discharge
Examples of discharge permit are given in Figure 6.6.7
In order to make the discharge permit system a part of the basic and effective environmental
protection laws in China, the discharge permit system must:
• Be independent from the framework of the total pollutant load control system and be
treated as a comprehensive environmental control and management system. The
discharge permit is the threshold for any discharge; without a permit, any pollutant
discharge is forbidden.
• Protect the public interest, and improve permitting procedures and enable public
participation in the discharge permitting process.
• Improve the permit implementation mechanism. Strong government enforcement is
especially needed, but citizen enforcement and oversight, as well as self-enforcement also
play important roles in the enforcement of the discharge permit system. Encouraging public
participation in the permit system and making public involvement readily accessible to the
general public is also essential for overcoming the government’s limitations in enforcing
Task A07-1
China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 114
Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013
and protecting the public interest.
Figure 6.6.7 Examples of discharge permit
6.7 Monitoring
6.7.1 Monitoring of Permit Compliance
In recent years, MWR has strengthened the water quantity and water quality monitoring of
surface water, groundwater, and strengthened water resources evaluation and analysis. But
overall, the current water resources monitoring cannot meet the requirements for implementing
the strictest water resources management system. The Chinese regulations for permitting of
water abstraction as well as wastewater discharge into water bodies do not enable adequate
monitoring for compliance and enforcement. The required permits are not integrated (quantity,
Task A07-1
China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 115
Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013
efficiency and quality) and critically, the permits are too simply worded and do not cover in
adequate unambiguous details and precision the obligations of the permit holder with regard to
Emission Limit Values (ELV), mixing zones, Best Available Technologies (BAT) requirements,
monitoring and inspection, reporting requirement, sources and data to be reported, specific
operation condition changes which would require a reassessment of the permit, penalties to be
incurred in case of breach of permit, and more.
Obviously, the tasks associated with clearly establishing water abstraction permit system and
pollution discharge permit system and then ensuring compliance with these is highly complex
and of considerable magnitude. Each issue needs to be looked at holistically as part of a
thoroughly planned and executed, integrated, strategic approach. The barriers and challenges
that must be addressed to fulfil this task include:
• lack of knowledge and understanding of the permits;
• poor attitudes and ‘cultures’ of agency staff towards communication, sharing of information
and enforcement;
• poor communication and attitudes towards government by water users;
• initial poor perspectives of WUA’s by water users in some areas;
• lack of data and mechanisms to verify compliance;
• inadequate resources to properly monitor and enforce where required;
• lack of history and capacity for transparency and accountability;
• potential for inconsistencies through nepotism and partiality.
In order to strengthen the management of water permits, MWR started to build a nationwide
water license registration system in late 2012, Figure 6.6.8. Detailed registration information
includes name of the abstractor, legal representative of water permit, water abstraction
location, pattern of water drawing, amount of water drawing, water use, water resource, water
withdrawal, water quality of withdrawal, the examination and approval authority, supervision
and inspection authorities, water permit valid information, etc.
Figure 6.6.8 Water permit registration system
Task A07-1
China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 116
Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013
6.7.2 Monitoring of receiving environment
Water resources monitoring is an important basic work for water resources management and
protection. Water quantity monitoring is mainly conducted by water resource departments,
while water quality monitoring is conducted by water resource departments and departments
of environment conservation within their respective range of duties. Water quality monitoring in
water function regions is conducted by water resource departments; departments of
environment conservation and water resource departments are responsible for water quality of
provincial-boundary interfaces. Subsidiary legislation prescribes various matters related to
sampling and testing:
• procedures, standard methodologies and techniques;
• the circumstances which qualify a grant of authority to government officials to carry out
sampling and testing;
• record-keeping;
• sampling methods and the effects which follow from the results of a test.
In 2012, MWR begun to construct national water resource monitoring system, and planned to
complete it in 3 years. Focussing on the "Three Red Lines", the system includes important
water abstractors monitoring system, important water functional areas monitoring system, and
the main provincial sections monitoring system based on routine checks and sample reviews.
Figure 6.7.1 Shows the current overview of this need.
Figure 6.7.1 Functions of capacity-building project on national water resource monitoring
Task A07-1
China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 117
Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013
6.8 Enforcement and Sanctions
Offences and penalties can be regarded as an integral part of law enforcement, i.e. of
mechanisms and processes aimed at ensuring compliance with the law in general. In general,
these include fines and imprisonment and, under the appropriate circumstances,
non-conventional measures such as suspension or cancellation of a permit. Also, a special use
of fines is made in connection with water abstraction or water pollution control offences,
consisting of fining an illegal abstraction/discharge on a daily basis for as long as the illegal
abstraction/discharge continues.
According to the provisions of SCD 460, supervision and administration of the implementation
of license for water drawing is conducted by the competent department of water administration
of the people's government at the county level or above or the drainage basin authority (Article
38). These administrative penalties could be taken as:
• If the circumstance is slight, the competent department of water administration, of a local
people's government at the county level or above the drainage basin authority or other
relevant department or any of its working staff shall be ordered by the administrative organ
or supervisory organ at the higher level to make a correction;
• if the circumstance is serious, the directly responsible person-in-charge and other persons
held to be directly liable shall be given administrative sanctions in accordance with the law;
• if any crime is constituted, it/he shall be subject to criminal liabilities in accordance with the
law.
6.9 Charging/Cost recovery
The Water Law 2002 (WL02) lays down the requirement for a water
withdrawal/drawing/abstraction permit system (WAPS) and for water resources fees (WRFs)
based on volumetric measurement. The intent of the State is to recover a portion of the
operational water management costs for public use of water through a resources fee and for
facilities and services provided by suppliers (government or other) through water charges.
Figure 6.9.1 shows the components of this in overview.
MWR Document 79 includes detailed provisions for most aspects of WRFs. These include
stipulations on the scope of water resources fee collection, methods of calculation and
collection of water resources, authority for water resources fee collection, procedures for
reporting on and verification of amount of water abstraction, installation of water abstraction
metering instrument, delivery of notice on water resources fee payment, sharing proportions of
collected water resources between the central and local authorities and the procedures of
payment to treasury, bills for water resources collection, scope for the use of collected water
resources fee, and administrative authority and their duties of supervision and service, etc.
As the central government did not provide a clear target of abstraction, the only charge-setting
principle given by central government to local governments is that both scarcity and ability to
Task A07-1
China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 118
Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013
pay should be considered while fixing the abstraction charges (The 2006 Regulation on
Management of Water Abstraction Licenses and Water Resource Charge, article 29). A
common practice among provinces is to assess charges based on the actual abstraction
volume and a unit charge rate, which is determined by the types of users and abstraction
sources. In general, levies for abstractions are calculated as follows:
{
( )
where, for type of users i that withdraw water from source j , Lij is the total levies, Vij is the actual
volume of water withdrawn, Rij is the unit charge rate, Pij is the volume of water permitted on the
abstraction license. If the actual abstraction exceeds the permitted abstraction, a progressively
higher charge rate Eij is levied on the excess volume. Both R and E are set by provincial
governments and vary by type of user and source of abstraction.
Figure 6.9.1 Components of water price in China
Although the charge-setting principle sounds equitable, major problems exist in:
• The water resource fee collection standards are generally poor.
• Insufficient charge collection is a common phenomenon in many areas, particularly in
remote and rural places.
• Few monitoring equipment is operating accurately.
• Low standard in the use of water resources fee, and existence of embezzlement.
• Supervision and management of water resource fee is not in place.
Therefore, emphasis will be laid on:
• Adjustment of water resources fee collection standards as soon as possible. The national
development and Reform Commission, Ministry of finance, and the Ministry of water
resources have jointly issued “Circular on issues concerning the collection of standard of
water resources fee”, and provided the lowest levy standard of WRF till 12th Five-year of
Task A07-1
China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 119
Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013
China –Table 6.9.2
• Full collection of water resources fee.
• Water resources fee collection based on accurate water volumes metering.
• Standardize use of water resources fee-less than 60% of the fee used for water resource
conservation, protection and management.
Table 6.9.2 Lowest levy standard of WRF till 12th Five-year of China (Yuan/m3)
Areas Average levies for
surface water
Average levies for
underground water
Beijing 1.6 4
Tianjin
Shanxi 0.5 2
Inner Mongolia
Hebei 0.4 1.5
Shandong
Henan
Liaoning 0.3 0.7
Jilin
Heilongjiang
Ningxia
Shannxi
Jiangshu 0.2 0.5
Zhejiang
Guangdong
Yunnan
Gansu
Xinjiang
Shanghai 0.1 0.2
Anhui
Fujian
Jiangxi
Hubei
Hunan
Guangxi
Hainan
Chongqin
Sichuan
Guizhou
Xizang
Qinghai
6.10 Supervision and inspection
According to the provisions of SCD 460, supervision and administration of the implementation
of license for water drawing is conducted by the competent department of water administration
Task A07-1
China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 120
Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013
of the people's government at the county level or above or the drainage basin authority, and
the supervision and administration of the levy and use of water resource fees is conducted by
the competent department of water administration, the administrative department of public
finance, and the competent department of price of the people's government at the county level
or above (Article 38).
Supervision and inspection could be laid on:
• water resource assessment
• water abstraction permitting;
• water use planning;
• levy and use of water resource fee;
• water function areas;
• sewage outlet to the river.
Efforts should be focused on checking whether the Three Red Lines are established and
conducting regular reviews about the compliance with the four indicators, i.e., total quantity of
water consumption, effective water use coefficient of farmland irrigation water, water
consumption per RMB10,000 industrial value added, and water quality compliance rate in
water function areas, and as to whether the accountability and performance assessment
system for water resources management is effectively implemented, and whether the strictest
water resources management system is effectively put into place.
6.11 Public Access to information
Public participation is conducive to ensuring the fairness of water policy implementation and
the policy improvement. And information disclosure is the premise of the public participation,
because the public know more about the local water resources condition and the existing
problem. At present, China has not established a unified water information system. For
example, water permit issuance quantity and the examination result, annual water abstraction
amount, annual water consumption, levy and use of water resource fee, also need to be timely,
continuously to the public. The lack of information disclosure supervision hindered public
participation opportunities.
Future works should be focused on:
• Establishment of information-sharing system;
• Full use of national and local mainstream media, strengthening in-depth understanding of
the permits to the public;
• Increased public participation.
Task A07-1
China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 121
Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013
7 Proposals for Review and Reform of Water Permits in China
7.1 Justification and overview
Proposals for review and reform of water resource permits in China have been the subject of
discussion by the group throughout the project. Information from the previous EU China
RBMP programme and the SKE report on Ecological Quality, led by Philippe Bergeron25 has
also been reviewed. Current best practice in the EU and China has been considered and
developed in the previous sections, which have led to the recommendations and ideas
developed through this project.
The importance of a secure and progressive water regulatory regime, backed by a logical and
fully enforced permit system is recognised by all as an important goal. Strong regulation is
essential to allow China to maintain and improve water security, improve the supply of water
for domestic and industrial use, and to improve environmental quality. The need to prioritise
water infrastructure expenditure, committed in the 2011 Number 1 Document, to take strategic
decisions on a river basin basis, and the optimisation of water resource are all key factors.
Ultimately public health, economic growth and environmental quality will deteriorate if this is
not managed in an integrated and progressive way.
However, there remain significant doubts about the ability of the devolved water management
system in China to deliver the improvements and to make the essential links between water
resource availability, water quality and required water abstraction limits and water quality
discharge standards. There are large gaps in the water regulatory cycle that need significant
improvement if changes are to be made.
The issue of split responsibility for water management causes frustration and lack of ability to
make changes. Many think this is too difficult to solve in China! The unclear responsibilities
between the MWR and MEP cause lack of strategic direction between water quantity and
water quality planning that is magnified in inconsistency in permitting. This is exacerbated by
25
SKE Project 2012 – China Europe Water Platform Knowledge Centre
Task A07-1
China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 122
Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013
variable quality and capability to determine permit conditions at Provincial level. This
influences protective water allocation; permit conditions, enforcement and prosecution
actions. This is made worse by the conflicts of interest that are known to occur at local level.
These conflicts include the pressure to promote economic growth, whilst needing to preserve
and protect water resources, on a catchment basis. There is an overriding need for clarity of
responsibility and for a single and accountable lead organisation. The EU has developed the
role of ‘Competent Authority’ to deliver EU Directives and to ensure accountability and
delivery. This could be developed for China and the group suggests that MWR is given this
role for overall delivery of quality and quantity issues essential for water resource
management. MWR already take the overall lead in the implementation of the Three Red
Lines policy.
However, international experience shows that water security, can and must, be addressed on
a river basin basis, through a strong and properly enforced water regulatory system, combined
with a strategic water resource plan. The EU Water Framework Directive is one model, but
similar models work well in North America and Australia. Large complex river basis can be
managed and significant improvements in quality can be made, given a strategic plan, clear
river quantity and quality objectives, targeted investment and a fixed timescale. All decisions
can be modelled and investment assessed and prioritised to maximum effect.
In overview the key elements for improvement and reform should include
Establish a clear lead role for water resources (quality and quantity) planning on a
full catchment basis
Develop a fully integrated water resource strategy, agreed at highest level
allowing integrated water quality and water quantity objectives to be set for all
river reaches and water bodies
o Set water quantity and quality standards, secure current standards and
develop within an ambitious improvement plan
o Establish integrated monitoring programmes
o Model options, costs and benefits
o Consult on options and opportunities
Review permitting process and adopt international best practice. Develop an
integrated permitting and enforcement strategy
o Ensure permits are understandable and enforceable by regulated and
regulators
o Ensure permit standards adhere with quality standards set in the strategic
plan.
o Improvement plans are built into permit conditions
o Include a convergence plan to ensure water abstraction and water
discharge permits complement each other and can be merged into a single
permit in the future
Ensure enforcement of permits
Task A07-1
China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 123
Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013
o Communications plan to ensure permit holders (municipal and industry)
comply and expect enforcement
o Train regulators in enforcement procedures
o Establish an enforcement code and prosecution policy
o Communicate to courts and enforcement agencies to ensure consistency
Develop a high profile implementation and change programme
o Use programme management techniques
o Set up key change projects
o Implement according to agreed timeframe
o Training plan for key individuals and permitting teams, including
enforcement and prosecution policy
o Communications plan to internal and external stakeholders
o Monitor water resource improvement
The justification, logic and evidence behind these proposals are developed in the subsections
below.
7.2 Approach and structure
Throughout the project the water regulatory cycle, exemplified in Diagram 7.2.1, has been
used to structure discussion and this report. It was originally developed by IMPEL and has
been tested and adapted against the Chinese and EU approaches to water regulation. It has
been modified slightly, but the essential principles remain sound and are equally applicable to
the Chinese and EU approaches.
The detail and procedures can be adapted to the Chinese situation but the overall approach is
universal and should be adopted to test and drive improvement across the water regulatory
regime. It is also the core element of water resource planning which if managed in an
integrated way can allow prioritisation and optimised investment within an improvement
programme.
Task A07-1
China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 124
Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013
Diagram 7.2.1 Water Resources Regulatory Cycle
The regulatory principles suit water quantity and water quality abstraction permitting and
should be taken up by MWR and MEP who should assist the provincial governments in the
change process and adherence to the policy.
We advocate that MWR becomes the clear lead organisation for implementation and
co-ordination of the Three Red Lines Policy. It should would work with MWR and other
Ministries and partners to co-ordinate method development and drive the change process
towards an agreed end point.
An optimal situation would be a single integrated permit, however we recognise that this could
not be achieved easily and may detract from the essential elements of water management.
We therefore suggest that the principles are developed as a common platform that could
enable progressive integration, leading to ultimate merger of regimes. This would give clarity
to the regulated community, bring efficiencies in implementation and could be developed as a
modern regulatory initiative, reducing red tape and bringing efficiency. Figure 7.2.2 shows
how this could be achieved within the context of and overall strategic plan. The timescale for
full integration can be developed and agreed as part of the evaluation process.
Task A07-1
China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 125
Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013
Figure 7.2.2 Proposed Water Resource Planning and Permit Alignment
7.3 Policy Planning
The 2011 No 1 Document outlines the strategic aspiration for increased water security and
essential water resource reform across China. The next level of technical strategy and
guidance to implement these strategies is needed and work is underway to develop elements
of specific guidance. However, for this study we recognise that outcomes need to be defined
in specific river basins or at the individual water body level, so that these can be translated into
permit standards.
The EU WFD attempts to achieve a strategic water resource planning framework, similar to
the No 1 Document, but it also seeks to define overall aspirations for water bodies of ‘good
status’. Significant technical and research work has been undertaken in Common
Implementation Strategy Guidance and to define good status and the steps and techniques
necessary to achieve the outcomes.
China needs to utilise the momentum provided by the No1 Document and to set stretching
water resource objectives that will make a significant impact on the deteriorating water
resource situation.
Task A07-1
China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 126
Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013
The further development and implementation of the Three Red Lines Policy, in combination
with the No1 Document could develop a similar platform to the WFD across China. Setting
stringent standards for each of the Red Lines (Quantity, Efficiency and Quality) could drive
the necessary improvement in water security. If these are set comprehensively then
standards in Abstraction and discharge permits could be modelled and set to ensure 3 Red
Line targets are met in rivers and lakes. However we think that this is likely to be a medium
term means to drive improvement.
A short term and radical solution, used in some rivers in Europe, particularly in accession
countries is to prepare the ground by implementing an interim step of reducing abstraction
and discharge by a set amount – using emission control techniques. These are embodied in
the EU Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive, and the IPPC regime for large industrial
discharges.
The work on the River Elbe, arising in the Czech Republic is a useful example. This was
heavily polluted prior to Czech joining the EU. Water quality improvement was initiated
starting with a declared policy target to reduce pollution load by 50%. Significant investment
was then targeted to improve discharges and begin compliance with the EU Directives. This
initial phase of 5-10 years then enabled the more stringent WFD targets to be developed into
secondary and tertiary improvement plans. These are now embodied in the WFD River
Basin Plan for the Danube.
China could decide to use a combination of measures to achieve water security. These
could follow elements of the Modern Regulation initiatives seen in the UK and elsewhere in
Europe. A combination of measures and developing a tool-box approach may offer options
to suit China. These could include water charging options, supply and demand approaches
for water quantity and innovative incentives for water saving.
All approaches will need a clear strategic direction from central government and a strong
regulatory background it they are to succeed.
A systematic roll out and a programme management approach is recommended to ensure
consistent implementation across the country.
7.4 Set Environmental Objectives
China has set and maintains water resource objectives linked to the National Functional Zone
system that has been in use for several years. These objectives tend to be linked to
development planning needs and maintain water quality and quantity to facilitate agriculture,
industrial use, and development and utilisation zones.
Task A07-1
China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 127
Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013
In addition, China is implementing the system of Three Red Lines Policy. In principle these
are a useful progression in water protection, however few details regarding the process and
stringency of the standards have been available. Potentially the Three Red Lines could be a
powerful tool if the standards set are stretching and progressive. However if they are set too
low, and low levels of compliance are allowed, they will not have the impact required.
River, lake and groundwater monitoring is also critical to understand the variability and
mechanisms impacting water quality in the environment. This information is needed to set the
standards and to monitor and report compliance. Monitoring programmes need to be
extended and targeted on a risk basis (see WFD risk assessment and risk based monitoring).
Thought should be given to setting standards that drive progressive improvement over a
reasonable period – say 5 years. In the first instance they could be set to allow compliance
with minimum standard, but a tighter standard could be given in the future. Initially these
could be flow and chemical related standards (possibly set as red lines), these can be
progressively tightened until ‘river need’s standards are brought into effect. Ultimately,
biological standards could be set, but this would be a longer term proposal. Table 7.4.1
outlines a possible progression.
Table 7.4.1 Possible progressive tightening of River Objectives and Standards
Year 1 Year 5 Year 10 Year 15
Consolidate existing
quality and flow
standards and
increase monitoring
Maintain or increase
environmental flow;
Reduce pollution by
50%
Move to ‘River Needs’
standards based on
flow and chemistry
Instigate and implement
biological standards
equivalent to EUWFD
This can be expressed graphically as in Figure 7.4.1
Task A07-1
China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 128
Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013
Figure 7.4.1 Progressively Improve Water Objectives for Quantity and Quality
National databases, or at least national access to data, should be set up to allow central
appraisal, compliance assessment and reporting to take place. It should be noted that
objectives are usually set a statistic, normally a 95%ile. This allows for variability in the
environment and monitoring errors. Obviously with more information, certainty increases.
A national state of the aquatic environment report, similar to that produced in the EU would be
useful to communicate progress and inform debate. This can take the form of ‘colours on
maps’; a well tried EU method.
Options and costs for future improvement can be modelled and discussions can take place on
priorities for action. Once the objectives in the environment are set, permit conditions can be
modelled and improvement plans incorporated into permits.
The setting of objectives in the environment is a key issue and could be the subject of a study
itself and the detail is beyond the scope and time available to this project. However its
importance and as central to a water strategy cannot be overestimated.
7.5 Permit Legislation
We have reviewed the water resource permit legislation. In general, this is adequate to
undertake the majority of steps required to implement permit reform in the short to medium
term. This will need checking to ensure that it enables the achievement of outcomes as the
reform takes place.
Task A07-1
China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 129
Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013
The key issue now and in the medium term, is the inconsistent application of the law and the
guidance and implementation that lies beneath it. For example, there is provision in the law
to set permits, an application process and legal permits are issued for water drawing and
water quality. However, the detailed content of the permits is not strong and the permit
conditions are not always linked to objectives set in the river. This coupled with a lack of
monitoring and enforcement makes the system less effective than it needs to be.
Detailed guidance on the format of permits, how to set permit conditions, monitor and enforce
compliance is critical to bring about reform. This needs to be linked with a change
programme and education and training for those engaged in the permit regulatory process.
Changing primary legislation is not easy and we suggest that this is unnecessary at the
moment. However, as the reforms are implemented and brought into force, the legal basis
and laws should be tested against the new requirements and changes considered if
necessary.
7.6 Set Permit
This is a key area for review and reform. An application process and administrative
arrangements for issuing permits are in place. Charging systems are also in use and have
been under review recently. Generally, permits are in place for abstractions and discharges
and examples are given in Section 5. However, there is little evidence that permits are fit for
purpose or are protective of water resources. In addition, the wording of the permits does not
allow effective compliance assessment or enforcement actions to be undertaken.
Permits are issued by Provincial water resources offices, either by MWR for abstraction or
MEP for discharge. Co-ordination between Ministries should be improved to reduce the
significant duplication of effort, bureaucracy and cost. Alignment of permitting structures and
administration, leading to a single integrated permit is recommended.
The linkages between the standards in permits and the environmental standards are not
always clear or protective. This is a clear area for reform and progressive improvement, linked
to the standards set in the receiving environment. Standards need to be set following
environmental assessment and modelling exercises, and should facilitate implementation of
the water strategy. Monitoring and assessment of compliance against these permit standards
must be improved.
A consolidation and improvement plan for permits should mirror the review and improvement
of river objectives and standards. Permits must be consolidated and tightened to achieve
these primary river objectives in a phased manner. Monitoring and modelling of the water
environment and the discharge performance will enable effective targeting of improvement
and clear cases for improvement to be calculated. Table 7.5.1 provides a possible sequence.
Task A07-1
China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 130
Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013
Table 7.5.1 Sequential tightening of permits
Year 1 Year 5 Year 10 Year 15+
Consolidate permits
and ensure legal
compliance with
existing standards
Tighten Permit
conditions to reduce
pollution emissions
by 50%. Reduce
water abstraction and
increase water
efficiency
Further tighten permit
conditions to allow
attainment of ‘River
Needs’ standards
based on flow and
chemistry
Progressive and
incremental tightening to
facilitate biological
standards equivalent to
EUWFD in the river
Figure 7.5.1 shows the progressive tightening of permit conditions. This can be done for
quantity and quality, but tightening quality standards is generally more achievable.
Figure 7.5.1 Progressively tighten permit standards to meet objectives and standards
This approach allows an improvement plan to be implemented, similar to the EU WFD
‘Programme of Measures’. The five year timescale is pragmatic and allows industry to plan
and adapt at a pace in tune with their financial planning cycles, or, in terms of China the 5 year
Economic Plans. The timescale could be accelerated if the political will was there and
progress. In Europe such improvement has generally been linked to phases of economic
investment and consolidation and when infrastructure is being improved and replaced.
Permits must clearly set out the requirements for process quality assurance, monitoring, and
other key requirements needed to assure the safe operation of the permit, within the legal
requirement. It should be clear to the operator and the inspector exactly what is required and
why.
Task A07-1
China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 131
Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013
A review should be undertaken to assess the quality of current permits and to estimate the
size of the review task and to assess any issues that might arise in the review process. In
addition, priorities could be set for review to ensure that the most damaging permits are
revised first. This might be done through an initial pilot catchment exercise.
Figure 7.5.3 puts the two elements together and demonstrates that progressive tightening of
permit standards can allow quality objectives to be met. All elements are modelled and permit
standards are calculated to meet the agreed improvement programmes and the progressive
improvement of environmental objectives and standards.
Figure 7.5.3 Interaction between permit standards and attaining quality objectives and
standards
Many of the key ideas and examples of good practice may be obtained from the review of EU
permits in previous chapters. Elements may be directly transferrable, but other issues will
need adaptation or innovation to suit the Chinese situation.
An early view of a strategy to achieve this would help in work planning and competence
building. With a clear understanding of a future path, some of the work to undertake this could
be done in parallel so that the planning and the skills needed are developed in advance.
7.7 Inspection and Monitoring of Permits
National guidance for monitoring permit compliance and the operation or regulated
installations should be developed. This would allow a move towards consistent application
and enforcement of permits and increased protection of water resources.
Task A07-1
China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 132
Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013
Examples of national guidance on EU inspection and monitoring are given in section 4.9.
These may assist in developing a similar regime for China.
Permits must facilitate clear understanding and assessment of compliance, by the regulator
and the operator.
The guidance should embody a number of principles set at policy level and might include:
1. Inspection frequency related to the risks that the installation poses and the
vulnerability of the receiving environment. Initially size and complexity of
installation may allow sector norms on monitoring frequency to be developed.
These could be changed progressively to true risk assessments, based on
performance and compliance history
2. Permits should encourage water use efficiency and waste minimisation. Methods
of assessing this need to be embodied in the permits
3. Monitoring and inspection must be targeted to the parameters of maximum
significance and analytical and quality assurance methods need to be consistent
4. Operators must be encouraged to assume responsibility for their installation. This
should not be offset to the regulator.
5. Self-monitoring and reporting arrangements, with independent audit, could be put
in place, provided the operator has sufficient capability
6. Operator record keeping on plant performance and onward transmission of data to
the regulator at prearranged frequency
7. Inspection and monitoring could be reduced once a strong track record of
compliance and capability has been established. A version of the UK
Environment Agency's (EA) Operator Monitoring Assessment (OMA) could be
adopted The system might be introduced for some sectors
8. Safe access at all times for regulators to key monitoring points and agreed parts of
the installation.
9. Competency training and awareness for operators and regulators
7.8 Assess Compliance
Compliance assessment is closely linked to the inspection and monitoring above. This
focusses on the numeric assessment and reporting of performance.
Depending on the monitoring regime, this may be undertaken by the regulator, or if a
self-monitoring regime is in place this may be undertaken by the operator and reported to the
regulator. The regulator may then audit performance on a risk basis. In either method, open
and frequent flow of information is critical, especially if the monitoring information is essential
for the operation of the installation and the protection of the water resource.
Task A07-1
China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 133
Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013
Environmentally protective standards in the permit, with a statistic, are essential for clear and
correct assessment. Once these are determined by the regulator the monitoring information
and compliance algorithm can be agreed and shared with the operator. Performance
information can be made available for operation of the plant or for assessment of impact on
water resources.
Performance information can be used by the regulator to assess national compliance and to
feed into future policy making and sector strategy. It can be input into predicative models and
will influence water resource strategy and national priorities.
Most EU MS now utilise electronic mechanisms for updating the regulator with self-monitored
information. An example is given in section 4.9. This allows data to be provided in a form
that can be automatically assessed for compliance by the regulator and placed on the public
registers.
Also consideration should be made to making this compliance information available to
stakeholders and possibly the public. In Europe, a number of companies now place
performance information on pubic web sites, or even update notice boards outside the plant
and in local media.
In some cases real time information is made available on the web, sometimes associated with
web-cam information on the production line and the receiving environment. This can
considerably increase public awareness and affinity with the local industries, often placed at
the centre of communities.
An effective data transmission, compliance assessment and open access to information
allows transparency and accountability from all standpoints. It increases confidence in the
regulator and the regulated and increases the protection of water resources.
7.9 Enforcement Options
Little time was available for this and the team did not have the legal skills to assess the
enforcement options currently available in China. More work is needed to assess this and
compare best practice in the EU with current practice in China. This would require a water
law expert, with experience of enforcement and sanctions in China to work alongside the
team.
The following notes may assist in scoping this future exercise.
Undertake a comprehensive review and comparison of best practice options in
enforcement and sanctions
Task A07-1
China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 134
Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013
Review enforcement options available in China
Explore Criminal vs civil sanctions – the UK Macrory Review would be useful in this
Enforcement policy – see UK and Danish examples
o Clear statement of intent and consequences
Fines
Imprisonment
Size of fines and length of prison terms – set out in UK legislation
o Proportionate enforcement
o Tool box approach
o Criminal and civil sanctions
Court and prosecution
o Environmental court – specialist courts in some EU countries
Civil damages and insurance options
Ensure that enforcement drives behaviour and protects water resources
Examine Modern Regulatory Approaches – Environment Agency Documents
7.10 Communication
Effective communication on performance against permit conditions, water resource condition,
water saving and the state of the environment is essential to build trust and dialogue on
options between the operator, the regulator and the key stakeholders.
Methods of communication have improved considerably in recent years. Lessons and
techniques have been learned from public relations initiatives and from the media and
advertising. In the water and environmental field significant progress has been made with the
introduction of the Public Access to Environmental Information Directive and the Stakeholder
information requirements of the EUWFD.
Good examples of EU communication of water information are provided in section 4.13.
Some may be useful to China and widening access is recommended. However China must
decide on best practice and speed of change, taking into account the best interests of China.
If public access is not considered a viable option at present, increased dialogue and
information exchange between regulators and regulated can improve performance and
understanding significantly. Also improved information flow between Government Ministries
and Provinces would improve decision making and consistency of regulation across and
within river basins. A staged improvement in communications and information exchange as
part of a communications strategy may be useful
7.11 Change Programme
Task A07-1
China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 135
Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013
A significant and wide ranging water resource change programme is recommended. This
should review the full permit cycle adopted here and set up a number of review and reform
projects. It should promote a national water resource strategy and include the work being
undertaken to implement the No1 Water Document. It should consider the future water
security needs of an emerging and fast growing China. It must encompass the key issues of
sustainability in water resource management and optimisation.
On the specifics of permitting this should include a national permit review group to undertake
this task and to specify and write the guidance necessary to reform the permits. The terms of
reference need to be considered carefully but they might include:
1. Assess quality wording and of current permits to ensure
a. That the permit is providing the correct level of protection to the water
resource and certainty to the permit holder.
b. Understandability by permit holder
c. Understandability and enforceability by inspector
d. Enforceability by the court/judicial system
2. Assess the standards included in the current permits to ensure that
a. Standards are clear and can be enforced
b. Standards are protective and meet the environmental objectives in force
now
c. Standards are linked to water resource models, or to Best Available
Technology (BAT), according to policy and industrial sector guidance
d. Standards can be progressively tightened to meet current and future water
resources objectives, including time limited changes and improvement
targets
e. The standards contain the necessary statistical definition to allow fair
compliance assessment and adequate water resource protection (e.g.
95%ile, mean, median etc)
3. Ensure that monitoring and reporting policy is embedded into the permits
a. Monitoring standards, quality assurance, analytical methods and other
criteria are clear and enforceable
b. That self-monitoring requirements, or external regulator monitoring of
abstraction or discharge quality is in place
c. That performance reporting criteria and methods are clear and in place
4. That the permit application process is clear and efficient and administrative
arrangements are optimised
a. Electronic application process are in place and are efficient and user
friendly
b. Timescales for administering and granting permits are clear and achievable
c. Adequate communications and data flow is in place for the efficient and
integrated issuing of permits, for both quantity and quality water resource
elements
d. Where are the gaps and opportunities for improvement
Task A07-1
China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 136
Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013
e. Who has the final say if there is conflict? Is there an adequate appeals
mechanism
5. There is a clear database for all permits linked to GIS
a. All permits should be available to regulators
b. Compliance assessment can be automated and national permit
achievement statistics are comparable and easily obtainable
c. Abstraction, discharge and water objectives can be linked and assessed
d. Assess the opportunities for making this transparent and pubic to
stakeholders
e. Assess the case for public registers of all permits
6. What are the skills and competencies for staff dealing with these aspects of
permitting?
a. What is current situation
b. What training is required
c. How would training programme be rolled out
d. Internal and staff communication issues
7. Communication strategy
a. Internal and MWR Directors, and institutes
b. Other Key Ministries and research institutes and organisations
c. Provinces, YRCC and CWRC and others
d. Other key external stakeholders, industry, municipalities
e. Consider using Modern Regulation as catalyst for this and to show the
benefits of reforming the approach and how permits and compliance bring
advantages to all
8. Scope a programme for review and improvement
a. Timescale
b. Phasing
c. Costs
d. Benefits
e. Dependencies
f. Risks
9. Develop a fully costed business case for the work
10. A second stage of co-operation in the form of a pilot study on water resource
planning and permitting between China and the EU is recommended to speed up
reform and reduce implementation risks. This should include developing ‘top to
bottom’ worked examples utilising the permitting and regulatory model developed.
This could take the form of pilot studies on real water bodies (surface and
groundwater) and placing water resources experts together to exchange views and
develop innovative methods to suit China.
Finally, China has a great opportunity to undertake this reform. It was signalled in the No. 1
Policy Document in 2011. Many of the basic building blocks are in place, but significant
change is required to ensure water security and the sustainable long-term protection of water
resources. The computer power, modelling facilities, hydrology and engineering skills are all
Task A07-1
China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 137
Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013
available and these changes can be achieved if the vision and need is communicated well to
those who can drive the changes forward.
Task A07-1
China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 138
Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013
8 Glossary of Terms
Aquifer is a porous rock structure within which water travels and is stored. Aquifers may be
shallow, a few metres in depth, or very deep being several hundred metres in depth.
Coastal water is that area of surface water on the landward side of a line, every point of which
is at a distance of one nautical mile on the seaward side from the nearest point of the baseline
from which the breadth of territorial waters is measured, extending where appropriate up to the
outer limit of transitional waters.
Determinands means constituents or properties of the water which can be determined, or
estimated, by direct or indirect measurement, in situ or in a sample.
Ecological status is an expression of the structure and functioning of aquatic ecosystems
associated with surface waters. Such waters are classified as being of good
ecological status when they meet the requirements of the Water Framework Directive
Emission limit value means the amount of a substance, usually expressed as a
concentration and/or a level, which may not be exceeded during any one or more periods of
time.
Emission controls are controls which are placed on emissions (point sources) requiring a
specified emission limit value.
Environmental objectives: Means the objectives set out in Article 4 of the Water Framework
Directive. Objectives include the protection of water bodies, attainment of Good Status and
other environmental requirements of the Directive.
Environmental quality standard: Means the concentration of a particular pollutant or group
of pollutants in water, sediment or biota which should not be exceeded in order to protect
human health and the environment.
European Union (EU) The European Union of is an economic and political union or
confederation of 27 Member States which are located primarily in Europe.
Groundwater is all water which is below the surface of the ground in the saturation zone and
in direct contact with the ground or subsoil. The saturation zone is commonly referred to as an
aquifer which is a subsurface layer or layers of rock or other geological strata of sufficient
porosity and permeability to allow a significant flow of groundwater or the abstraction of
significant quantities of groundwater.
IMPEL: The European Union Network for the Implementation and Enforcement of
Environmental Law (IMPEL) is a network of the environmental authorities of EU Member
States, acceding and candidate countries, and Norway. It provides a framework for policy
Task A07-1
China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 139
Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013
makers, environmental inspectors and enforcement officers to exchange ideas, and
encourages the development of enforcement structures and best practices.
Inland water is all standing or flowing water on the surface of the land (such as reservoirs,
lakes, rivers and canals) and all groundwater on the landward side of the baseline from which
the breadth of territorial waters is measured.
Lake is a body of water, which may be man-made or natural, occurring on the land surface.
Member States: Are the individual countries that belong to the European Union and are
bound by the Water Framework Directive. Other sovereign nations may choose to adhere to
the Directive in order to co-operate with the EU, but are not bound by the legislation. Some
comparison may be made with the Provincial Level within China.
Outcomes: These are the overall environmental, economic or social conditions required by
European society, within a river basin. They will include: good quality water environment;
water suitable for potable abstraction and use; fisheries; recreational use etc. These will also
lead to healthy environments for people, sustainable economic use, (e.g. tourism) and healthy
ecosystems.
Permitting: Establishing legal and verifiable controls on an activity that has the potential to
pollute.
Point sources (of pollution) are primarily discharges from municipal wastewater treatment
plants associated with population centres or effluent discharges from industry.
Polluter pays principle is enshrined within the Water Framework Directive requiring that the
polluter of the water environment should pay, provided this is established through fair pricing
policies.
Pollution is the introduction of substances or energy into the environment, resulting in
deleterious effects of such a nature as to endanger human health, harm living resources and
ecosystems, and impair or interfere with amenities and other legitimate uses of the
environment. (See also Water Framework Directive and Integrated Pollution Prevention and
Control Directive definitions and discussion in Chapter 8.)
Programme of measures defines in detail those actions which are required to achieve the
environmental objectives of the Directive within a river basin district.
Regulated: controlled through application of the law, whether directly (e.g. prohibition) or by
having and complying with a permit or authorisation issued by a regulator.
Regulation: the application of a legal constraint on an activity to ensure a defined objective
(e.g. protecting water quality) is attained. Regulation may use a wide range of instruments,
according to risk (from prohibition to advice). Water quality regulation typically involves at least
one of environmental quality standards, permits or authorisations, exemptions or generally
binding rules.
River is a body of inland water flowing for the most part on the surface of the land but which
may flow underground for part of its course. Upland rivers are generally fast flowing and
lowland rivers are generally slow flowing and meandering.
River Basins: Sometimes known as a river catchment, a “river basin” is the area of land from
which all surface run-off flows through a sequence of streams, rivers and sometimes lakes into
the sea at a single river mouth, estuary or delta.
River basin district is a river catchment or a group of catchments.
Task A07-1
China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 140
Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013
River basin management plan is a detailed document describing the characteristics of the
basin, the environmental objectives that need to be achieved and the pollution control
measures required to achieve these objectives through a specified work programme.
Surface water means inland waters, except groundwater, which are on the land surface(such
as reservoirs, lakes, rivers, transitional waters, coastal waters and, under some
circumstances, territorial waters) which occur within a river basin.
Water body: is a discrete and significant element of surface water such as a river, lake or
reservoir, or a distinct volume of groundwater within an aquifer. It is the basic building block of
the river basin planning process. It delineates the sub-unit to which the environmental
objectives should apply. The size of water bodies is determined by the optimum
management unit and the variability of the water affected.
Water Resources: means the combination of water quality and water quantity, either or both
of which can be limiting in a given situation.
Water security: The capacity of a population to ensure that they continue to have access to
potable water and irrigation and industrial uses of water at an acceptable level of risk of
disruption due to e.g. floods, drought, pollution.
Water strategy: An analysis of water issues and their administrative, and/or institutional
and/or technical options for resolution, leading to implementation plans for resolution of those
issues within a defined timescale and suite of resources.
Water Table: The top of the saturated zone within an aquifer.
Task A07-1
China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 141
Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013
Annex 1 – EU Permit Examples
Because of their size and complexity, these will be made available in electronic form, on a CD
attached to the hard copy report or associated with the E-version of this report, via the China
Europe Water Platform Knowledge Centre
Permits on abstraction and discharge of water from UK
Permits on abstraction and discharge of water from Denmark
Permits on abstraction and discharge of water from China
Permits on abstraction and discharge of water from Germany
Permits on abstraction and discharge of water from France
Permits on abstraction and discharge of water from Holland
Task A07-1
China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 142
Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013
Task A07-1
China Europe Water Platform – Final – 22 November 2013 Page 143
Task A07-1 CEWP Permitting Study – Final – 22 November 2013
Annex 2 – Key Document Library and References
Because of their size and complexity, these documents will be made available in electronic
form, on a CD attached to the hard copy report or associated with the E-version of this report,
via the China Europe Water Platform Knowledge Centre.
The document directory is as follows: