Talk:James Bevan (diplomat)

COI edit request
Hey all - as stated in my user page I work for the Chief Executive of the Environment Agency, Sir James Bevan. I am disclosing my COI for transparency. This post aims to correct an error on this page.

'''* Specific text to be removed: '''

In the Career section it says:''“Bevan undertook a controversial decision to weaken environmental standards of rivers as part of post-Brexit proposals which would amend the EU’s Water Framework Directive (WFD).” ''

'''* Reason for the change: '''

This sentence should be rewritten because it is not factually correct. No “decision” to "weaken" the Water Framework Directive (WFD) has been “undertook” by Sir James Bevan. The WFD applies to English rivers under retained EU law. The claim this sentence makes has not been stood up: its one and only reference is a Guardian article and nowhere in the article does it say any “decision” was “undertook” by Sir James to change the WFD. I think this sentence accidentally misinterprets a speech Sir James’ made where he spoke about reforming the WFD to deliver better outcomes in August 2020. Here is what Sir James said about the WFD in that speech in full. Because of my COI I will leave others to judge how the sentence should be rewritten:

''“I think we should also consider reforming one of the totemic EU laws, the Water Framework Directive. The WFD, as it is known to the practitioners, was a landmark piece of legislation. It set high standards and demanding deadlines for improving water quality in rivers, lakes, estuaries and groundwater, and it has driven much of the work that the EA and others have done over the last twenty years to secure those improvements.

There are lots of great things about the WFD, in particular its recognition that water quality is perhaps the biggest single X factor for the environment; that water bodies need to be managed in an integrated way as part of catchments; and that the health of rivers is not just about the chemicals that should or shouldn’t be in them but their biology and hydromorphology: the depth, width, flow, river bank structure – all of which should respect nature as far as possible, rather than forcing rivers into engineered straitjackets from which they are all too likely to burst.

''However, the WFD is not perfect. It has a famous “one out all out” rule, under which rivers fail to meet the required status if they fail on any of the four categories in the directive: biological (phytoplankton, macroalgae, fish, invertebrates, etc), physical-chemical (temperature, pH, dissolved oxygen, ammonia, etc), chemical (concentrations of pollutants like arsenic and iron), and hydromorphological.''

''There are two problems with this approach. The first is that it can underplay where rivers are in a good state or where improvements have been made to those that aren’t. Right now only 14% of rivers in England qualify for good status under the WFD, because most of them fail on one or other of the criteria. But many of those rivers are actually in a much better state than that, because most of them now meet most of the criteria: across England, 79% of the individual WFD indicators are at good status. The second problem with the one out all out rule is that it can force regulators and others to focus time and resources on indicators that may not make much difference to the actual water quality, or where we realistically cannot achieve one of the criteria – some of England’s heavily engineered rivers in urban centres, for example, will never be restored to their natural state.''

So, the WFD is not in my view a candidate for repeal – because it has driven a lot of improvement in our waters - but it is a candidate for thoughtful reform to deliver even better outcomes .”

Dax 17 (talk) 16:53, 17 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Does the COI editor Dax 17 have some suggested language that can be used to replace the information they claim to be inaccurate? The article can’t list the entire multi paragraph excerpt from his speech. But reasonable editors might consider changing the language of that one sentence in the existing article to better reflect a WP:NPOV position on an important environmental issue that seems to be a notable part of the record of this public official. Does Dax 17 or any other interested editors have a suggestion on how to word the sentence in a more NPOV way? Go4thProsper (talk) 12:41, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello Go4thProsper,

My suggestion is to replace:

"Bevan undertook a controversial decision to weaken environmental standards of rivers as part of post-Brexit proposals which would amend the EU’s Water Framework Directive (WFD). Just 14% of English rivers have been assessed under the directive as good. The directive sees water quality as an area that can have the most significant impact on the environment and examines factors such as biology, physical character, depth, width, flow and pollution as part of the four tests. Bevan's proposal would see quality only reflecting one of the four criteria which campaigners believe would present a false view of water quality.[6]"

With this new text:

"In a speech entitled ‘In praise of red tape: getting regulation right’ made in August 2020, Bevan said the EU’s Water Framework Directive (WFD) was “a candidate for thoughtful reform to deliver even better outcomes. ” as part of post Brexit proposals.

Bevan praised progress made under the WFD, but argued the WFD’s “one out all out” rule, under which rivers fail to meet the required status if they fail on any of the four categories in the directive: biological, physical-chemical, chemical, and hydromorphological can underplay where rivers are in a good state or where improvements have been made to those that aren’t. He cited the example that while just 14% of English rivers have been assessed under the WFD as “good”, across England, 79% of the individual WFD indicators are at good status. Bevan argued this approach can force regulators and others to focus time and resources on indicators that may not make much difference to the actual water quality, or that realistically cannot achieve one of the criteria. Campaigners argued Bevan's proposal would present a false view of water quality. "

I will leave other editors to judge whether that is a WP:NPOV edit given my COI. I have tried to better outline what was actually said in his speech and erase the wrong assertion that any decision was made.

Dax 17 (talk) 14:07, 1 February 2022 (UTC)