PORTS HIGHLIGHT CONCERNS ABOUT LATEST EU LEGISLATION

Although the WFD was not developed specifically to deal with water bodies in ports and harbours, like the EU’s Birds and Habitats Directive, it could have serious ramifications for them say representatives of some of the major port organisations in Europe.

Jan Brooke, an environmental consultant working for the Port of London Authority (PLA) and others, is also chair of a task group led by the International Navigation Association (formerly PIANC), to examine the possible implications of the WFD for ports, harbours, commercial and leisure navigation and dredging. She told the NCE Water Framework Directive conference in July that she believed the Directive could have “various practical implications”.

“Among the measures which are likely to be of particular relevance to the ports, harbours and dredging sector will be those associated with the delivery of the requirements of Article 16 of the WFD, dealing with the progressive reduction and phasing out of priority substances and priority hazardous substances respectively, ” Brooke explained.

“New developments – for example dredging and disposal, or new infrastructure – are permitted under Article 4(7) of the WFD, if a number of criteria are met, and need to be considered under what are known as River Basin Management Plans. The reasons for any proposed modifications or alterations affecting water status must be set out and explained in these plans, and reviewed every six years, ” Brooke told PS.

Additional criteria call for all practical mitigation measures to be taken; there must be reasons of overriding public interest; and the beneficial objectives cannot be achieved by a technically feasible, environmentally better option not involving disproportionate cost.

However, as Brooke explained, at present it is far from clear how these criteria will be applied, and which projects will be subject to assessment.

“Experience with similar criteria applied under the EU Birds and Habitats Directives suggests that some development projects may be subject to increased costs, delays and uncertainties, ” says Brooke, noting that ports and harbours wishing to undertake development work could be affected by these criteria, irrespective of whether or not they happen to be located in a designated site (as per the Habitats and Birds directive).

The EU WFD came into force in 2000. The timetable for its implementation extends over 15 years requiring ‘good ecological status’ or the equivalent for designated or derogated water bodies to be achieved by 2015. Its aim is to “establish a Community framework for the protection of inland surface waters, transitional waters, coastal waters and groundwater, in order to prevent and reduce pollution, promote sustainable water use, protect the aquatic environment, improve the status of aquatic ecosystems and mitigate the effects of floods and drought”.

Under the WFD, water bodies that have been subject to significant change as a result of man-made activity such that it is not possible to achieve ‘good ecological status’ – so called Heavily Modified Water Bodies (HMWBs) – will be required to achieve “good ecological potential”. Examples of such bodies could include estuaries that have been dredged or otherwise modified for port use.

In June, a group of European organisations involved in the marine navigation and dredging sectors issued a position paper highlighting what they believe are some of the implications of the EU WFD for ports, harbours, commercial and leisure navigation, and dredging. The paper was issued by PIANC on behalf of the European Sea Ports Organisation (ESPO), European Federation of Inland Ports (EFIP), Central Dredging Association (CEDA), Inland Navigation Europe (INE), and International Association of Dredging Companies (IADC).

As PIANC points out, the aims of the WFD are broadly supported by ports and harbours. “However, ” says the position paper, “the WFD also raises issues which are of fundamental importance to the sector and require urgent attention. If the objectives of the WFD are to be achieved in a sustainable manner – compatible with the reality of the maritime and inland waterways sectors – these issues must be addressed.” The issues in question, which the paper highlights, include the wider environmental issues of the WFD; the need for clarity, consistency and transparency; and the practical and economic implications of the WFD.

“The WFD could have potentially adverse consequences for the ports, harbours, the navigation and the dredging sectors, ” says the paper. “Early consideration must be given to the practical implications of the Directive, including possible constraints on activities and operations, increased costs, and delays or uncertainties.”

Further, ” says the paper, “the economic analyses need to include an assessment of the financial and economic implications of the WFD for port, harbour, navigation and dredging activities.”

According to Jan Brooke, the responsibilities of port, harbour and navigation authorities as regulators under the WFD remain unclear.

“Implementation of the WFD is well underway, but there are still many opportunities to input to, and influence, the process. Effective proactive stakeholder participation will be vital to successful implementation of the WFD, ” Brooke concluded. “Article 4(7), and much else in the Directive, raises more questions than it answers, and ports need to engage in discussion with the relevant authorities as to its application in practice.”