CHAPTER 7: SUMMARY AND IMPLICATIONS FOR IMPLEMENTATION
7.1 The overarching aim of the research was to inform implementation of the WFD by exploring:
- the meanings people attach to the water environment;
- the values attached to its different attributes;
- the public's priorities for service provision, and the factors that affect these priorities;
- methods of how people have been, and should be, consulted in the implementation process.
7.2 The aim of this chapter is to summarise the main findings and draw out the implications for implementation. An overall conclusion is presented at the end of this chapter.
Current perceptions of the water environment
7.3 In general, Scotland's water environment is perceived as very good. On one hand, this creates a potential difficulty in that people may not appreciate the need for the WFD and the costs and other impacts associated with implementation. On the other hand, there is the potential to build on the importance and pride felt about the quality of Scotland's water. Evidence from the focus groups suggests that the public may well be receptive to messages about maintaining our high standards and protecting one of Scotland's key assets.
7.4 In discussions about the water environment, members of the public tend to focus on drinking water rather than the broader water environment. This suggests there is a need to educate the public on what constitutes the broader water environment and what, in addition to pollution, can damage it. One possibility would be to have awareness raising campaigns that tapped into the interest and concern about the environment in general which was apparent in the focus groups.
Priorities for improvement
7.5 It was clear from the research that it would not be possible to construct a meaningful hierarchy of the public's priorities for improvement or for resolving conflicts (for example, environmental considerations ahead of economic ahead of social) as views were very dependent on the specific circumstances. The only clear priorities to emerge were safeguarding the drinking water supply and focussing on improving the worst areas rather than attempting to make already 'good' areas even better.
7.6 Although no simple criteria emerged for prioritising improvements or resolving conflicts, what did emerge were priorities for the decision-making process. These were:
- questioning the assumptions and impacts of the situation under consideration. This suggests that the public will want detailed, credible evidence to inform their involvement.
- exploring a wide range of alternative options.
- where a conflict of interests seems unavoidable, seeking compromise between the affected parties.
- in many cases, mitigating the effects on parties disadvantaged by the decision (for example, compensation for farmers).
Engaging the public
7.7 The focus groups proved that members of the public can be engaged in discussions about managing the water environment. Evidence from the process of conducting the focus groups and the discussions themselves suggests that the following issues should be considered:
- engaging people by tapping into the existing interest and concern about the environment in general - rather than specifically mentioning the 'water environment' at the outset.
- avoiding the use of technical terms (such as 'abstraction' and 'impoundment') as much as possible or, where unavoidable, explaining terms and concepts.
- focussing on the ultimate aim of improving the environment, rather than the European legislation angle.
- where appropriate, recognising the other demands on people's time and potential expenses involved by giving people monetary incentives to attend focus groups or participatory events. While this will not be appropriate or feasible for all forms of public involvement, it is a potentially important factor in ensuring representation from the broader community rather than just particular interest groups.
- involving people at an appropriate stage - when there are specific, tangible issues to be discussed rather than more abstract principles.
7.8 Finally, and perhaps most importantly:
- engaging people at a local level so that they have an interest in, and an understanding of, the issues and they can see the actual impact of any improvements.
7.9 While the most effective engagement will be at a local level, there may be a role for some national initiatives. This mirrors the findings of the literature review (Dalrymple 2006). For example, the implementation of an education campaign to raise awareness of the threats to the water environment and what steps the public can take to help (such as conserving water or using ecologically friendly products - or whatever might be deemed priorities for improvement) could be considered. As discussed above, these messages should focus on maintaining and protecting one of Scotland's key assets and tap into existing concerns about the environment in general. It may also make sense to support local activities with nationally co-ordinated guidance (for example, tool-kits or examples of best practice) on how best to engage members of the community.
Conclusion
7.10 Overall, this research indicates that both the public and the stakeholders consider Scotland to have good water quality and water quality. That said, both groups identified current and potential threats to Scotland's water environment and their priorities for the future were mostly based on these concerns.
7.11 The findings from the focus groups are interesting when considering how to engage members of the general public in WFD consultation. The most important point to note here is that during the discussions the focus group participants were clearly engaged, interested and happy to discuss the issues for at least an hour and a half. This suggests that it is possible to generate public involvement.
7.12 However, as discussed throughout, there are caveats that must be borne in mind if public engagement in the WFD is to be successful and take account of local social and economic issues. In particular, meaningful engagement would be at a local level, at an appropriate stage, i.e. when there are specific tangible issues to be discussed rather than more abstract principles, and should preferably be representative of the whole community.