Afonydd Cymru welcomes report into Welsh river pollution
The report acknowledges the unique legislative and policy needs of Wales, as water management is a devolved issue.
Afonydd Cymru, a representative body for Welsh rivers, has welcomed the report's recognition of these differences, as the recommendations will now be considered by the Welsh Government rather than Westminster.
The report calls for more strategic direction from the Welsh Government across the whole water sector, not just the water industry.
It points out that pollution from all sectors, especially agriculture in Wales, needs to be resolved to restore rivers.
The report challenges favourable comparisons between Wales and England regarding the state of rivers, stating that claims of 43 per cent of Wales's water bodies being in 'Good Ecological Status' and 90 per cent in 'Good Chemical Status' may not be accurate.
This discrepancy is attributed to less stringent assessments by Natural Resources Wales compared to the Environment Agency in England, according to Afonydd Cymru.
The report recommends tighter regulation of sewage sludge spreading on farmland, a move welcomed by Afonydd Cymru.
The sludge contains nutrients, toxic chemicals, and heavy metals, which can end up in rivers.
This change aligns with calls for regulating the spreading of digestate in Wales.
One major recommendation is the creation of a new economic regulator for water, a move already initiated by the Westminster Government with the announcement of Ofwat's abolition.
In Wales, the Deputy First Minister has also stated that there will be a new economic regulator for water, although further details are yet to be announced.
However, the report was criticised for its lack of a clear plan for cross-border rivers, recommending their management be split along borders.
Afonydd Cymru argues that rivers like the Severn, Dee, and Wye would be better managed on a catchment basis.
The Welsh Government has stated it will take time to consider the full 465 pages and 88 recommendations of the report, which marks the most significant review of water management in 35 years.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Leader Live
38 minutes ago
- Leader Live
Farmers Union of Wales reacts to this years Royal Welsh Show
This year's Royal Welsh Show was a resounding success once again for the FUW Group. The Pavilion was a hive of activity throughout the week, welcoming members, the public, politicians and policymakers to discuss the many changes and challenges facing Welsh agriculture. A key highlight of the week was the launch of the Union's 'A Mandate for Future Farmers' report, outlining the FUW's vision for increasing opportunities for young farmers and new entrants in Wales. A well-attended launch, chaired by the FUW's Policy Officer, Teleri Fielden, gave 3 young farmers an opportunity to share their own experiences of farming. Meanwhile representatives from Farming Connect and Wales YFC also gave further insight into some of the opportunities and challenges facing new entrants and young farmers. As the dust continues to settle following the launch of the Sustainable Farming Scheme, Monday saw a jam-packed seminar on the subject, providing members and the public with the opportunity to question the Welsh Government on elements of the SFS, and what it means for their own businesses. Wednesday morning also provided an opportunity to delve into the Welsh Government's new Ffermio Bro agri-environment scheme, exploring its potential to support farmers within Wales' National Parks and Designated Landscapes. Beyond policy discussions the week also provided an opportunity for celebration, with the FUW marking its 70th birthday. A panel discussion was held on Wednesday to mark the occasion, bringing together Glyn Roberts, Huw Jones, Ann Davies MP and Tom Jones. Chaired by Dei Tomos, this provided the panellists and the audience with the opportunity to reminisce and reflect on seventy years of the FUW. Throughout the week the FUW Presidential team and policy officers met with a wide range of politicians from all political parties, ensuring the voice and concerns of members were heard loud and clear. These included First Minister, Eluned Morgan MS, Deputy First Minister, Huw Irranca Davies MS, UK Leader of the Opposition, Kemi Badenoch MP, Dame Nia Griffith MP, and several Plaid Cymru MPs and MS'. As well as responding to a steady stream of interview bids from the media on everything from the SFS to Agricultural Property Relief, mental health to the India Trade Deal, there was also an opportunity for some entertainment too, with Bwncath's Tuesday night gig a sell-out once again. A successful Presidential Reception was also held, rewarding Glyn Roberts, John Owen and Alun Elidyr for their huge contributions to Welsh agriculture. Thanks to everyone who called by our pavilion this year, and made the Show a resounding success once again. We look forward to continuing our stream of county shows across Wales over the coming weeks.
The Independent
38 minutes ago
- The Independent
Heathrow's third runway plan is wrong – and not just because of noise and pollution
Here we go again. To say there is a deja vu aspect to the latest proposal to build Heathrow's third runway is an understatement. For reasons that are not clear, Sir Keir Starmer has determined the airport's expansion to be a key plank in the government's economic growth strategy. Seemingly, he did not take into account the issues that grounded the plans in the past, as far back as 1968 – namely, Heathrow's unfortunate and unavoidable proximity to the M25, the rivers and their valleys that cross that part of west London, the additional noise pollution, and the need for improved and costly transport links to and from the centre of the capital that will result from the vast uplift in passengers. On the constant sound from the increased number of planes landing and taking off, the prime minister will insist that great technological strides have been made in curbing the din. It is true that new aircraft are less noisy. However, they are still extremely audible, there will be more of them, and they will be flying over a heavily residential area. As for the rest, nothing has altered fundamentally, environmentally and logistically, since Heathrow last submitted a scheme, pre-Covid. Inflation means the bill is now an eye-watering £49bn. The bill, ultimately, will be borne by the air passenger, and Heathrow is already the most expensive airport in the world. Will the airlines and their customers stomach at least a doubling in charges? There is the thorny problem, too, of public transport to and from London. The London mayor will be expected to find a way to enable an extra 60 million people a year to use Heathrow. Transport for London is strapped for cash, struggling to upgrade the Tube network. How the additional demand will be met is not clear. What has shifted as well is the nature of air travel. Post-pandemic, business travel is down and looks unlikely to recover – that, certainly, is what the industry is saying. During the outbreak, holding meetings remotely came into its own and employers took a hard look at their budgets – Zoom or Teams often represent a better alternative in executive time and expense. That therefore raises a major doubt about one of the main claims made for Heathrow's extension. It is said to be necessary to enhance London and the UK's standing in the business world, but how, if the commercial users are not there? There has been movement too, and not of the positive kind, in attitude towards Heathrow the operator. The power outage that shut down the plum in Starmer's vision for resurgence and global acclaim was a shocking episode; it not only highlighted a neglected infrastructure but also a failure of management. Thomas Woldbye, who is seeking permission to build this national project, is the same boss who slept through the night as Britain's busiest airport ceased to function. Heathrow's reputation in the sector was already poor, but this took it to a new low. Woldbye has an idea that is different from the one previously suggested, which is to build the third runway over the M25, taking the motorway underneath – and all without any disruption to road users. This is fanciful even without a track record that hardly inspires confidence. Which raises another question. Why? Why should Heathrow as a company get to preside over the airport's improvement and reap the benefits? If we're all agreed that it is a vital national asset, holding a pivotal place in the economy, then why should the incumbent be in charge, not to mention entrusted, with its development? Those who wax lyrical about Heathrow's importance like to reminisce about how Britain led the transformation of international aviation. Boosting the airport is seen as completing that journey. It is the case that we once did. That was in the Margaret Thatcher era, when British Airways was freed from the shackles of state ownership. Thatcher did more than that, though. She enabled and encouraged competition, giving a steer to the challengers and disruptors, notably to Richard Branson at Virgin and Michael Bishop at British Midland. The newly privatised BA was forced to raise its game, and together, these three set new standards. There appears to be an assumption that Woldbye's company must be given the job. But there is another option. Surinder Arora, the self-made billionaire who has masterminded the building of leading hotels at Heathrow and other airports and is a substantial Heathrow landowner, has his own remedy. His is much cheaper, envisaging a shorter runway that does not affect the M25. It is easy to dismiss Arora. But he is popular with the airlines, he rails rightly against Heathrow's pricing, and he knows a thing or two about customer service. He also possesses heavyweight advisers in the shape of Bechtel, the US engineering, construction and project management giant. He deserves to be taken seriously. Heathrow needs a competitor. Likewise, if neither the airport operator nor Arora is selected and the third runway is again kiboshed, then surely serious thought must be given to expanding rival airports. Heathrow has been resting on its laurels for too long. As for Starmer, he perhaps should ask himself how it is that someone who professes to be forensic legally is so capable of displaying rushes of blood to the head politically. Giving Heathrow such prominence smacks of impetuousness. He's done it and has been left with an almighty headache.
The Independent
38 minutes ago
- The Independent
Could this be the way Starmer placates his revolting MPs?
Keir cannot afford another fiasco like welfare,' one Starmer loyalist told me, recalling the government's humiliating climbdown on proposed cuts to disability benefits after a revolt by Labour MPs. The prime minister knows the episode showed that his way of governing is unsustainable. He is consulting people widely this summer about how to turn things round. There's a fierce internal debate taking place. In Keir Starmer's right ear, Morgan McSweeney, his influential chief of staff, tells him to focus on wooing back voters in the red wall from Nigel Farage. In his left ear, soft-left cabinet ministers urge a more progressive approach to woo centre-left voters who have deserted Labour for the Liberal Democrats and the Greens. They argue that these lost voters outnumber defectors to Reform by a margin of three to one. The soft left's allies in Downing Street want Starmer to emulate Bill Clinton, who fought back against a right-wing populist – Newt Gingrich, the Republican speaker of the House of Representatives – after a rocky start to his first term in 1993. One minister admitted: 'There is a battle over the direction of the government. There is only one person who can resolve it. Keir has got to decide for himself – based on his values, who he is, who he wants to be.' The left-ear whisperers want the PM to trust the instincts that are serving him well on foreign affairs and apply them to the domestic agenda, too. Starmer appeared to be tacking leftwards when he told Tom Baldwin for the paperback version of his biography, published on Thursday: 'We have to be the progressives fighting against the populists of Reform – yes, Labour has to be a progressive party.' He has hinted that he wants to tackle child poverty by scrapping the two-child benefit limit. The PM has nodded to Labour critics who argue – persuasively – that his government has sometimes acted left but talked right, and that it's no wonder, therefore, that it gets little credit from progressive voters. He said that issues such as clean energy, nationalising the railways and increasing the national minimum wage should be shouted louder from the rooftops. 'We should show we're proud of all that,' he told Baldwin. Starmer views this as part of 'telling a better story'. But you can only tell one if you know the direction in which you are heading. The battle isn't over yet; I'm told McSweeney is not convinced about a shift to the left. His critics say the shortcomings of attacking Reform head-on were illustrated when the science secretary Peter Kyle claimed Farage was on the paedophile Jimmy Savile's side in the heated debate over internet regulation. The attack line was reportedly approved by No 10, but it backfired. It was the sort of smear we might expect from Reform. The lesson for Starmer: Labour can't 'out-Farage Farage', and the public will vote for the real thing if Labour tries to look like Reform-lite. Allies of McSweeney believe the red wall will decide the next general election, so Labour's primary pitch must be to the white working class. His internal opponents insist that trying to re-run the 2024 election triumph, McSweeney's greatest hit, will not work next time. They dispute the idea that Labour 'won' the north and the Midlands last year, saying that it reaped the benefit of a split on the right between the Conservatives and Reform, and that Labour regained seats seized by the Tories in 2019 mainly because Tory voters switched to Reform. At the next election, Farage will likely hoover up the right-wing vote. Crucially, the left vote will be split this time – inflicting deep damage to Labour unless Starmer can appeal to left-of-centre voters. He won't do that by tacking right, cutting benefits for the disabled and pensioners or aping Farage. For Starmer to win a presidential contest against the Reform leader, being the anti-Farage candidate will not be enough: he will have to offer progressive voters more than he has offered them so far. Another reason why Starmer should listen to the buzz in his left ear is that the new socialist party launched by Jeremy Corbyn and Zarah Sultana will present another alternative to disenchanted Labour voters. It already has 600,000 registered supporters. Starmer won't lurch to the Corbyn hard left – and rightly so. But the sensible decision he should make this summer is that it's time for Labour to live up to its name and its values, and stop pretending to be something it is not.
