SUPPLEMENTARY MEMORANDUM SUBMITTED BY
THE ENVIRONMENT AGENCY (V34)
At the Environment Agency's appearance in front
of the Agriculture Select Committee further information was requested.
The first area in addition to our evidence related to financial
information. Attached is an analysis of the proposed IPPC charges
and information regarding the grant-in-aid received by the Agency.
The second area of requested information related
to research into IPPC and the pig and poultry industries' current
situation in the rest of the Europe Union.
At the present time our best estimate of the
situation in Europe is set out in a report commissioned by the
Agency. This was prepared for us in Spring 1999 by Tiago Pellini,
a PhD student at Cranfield University who has undertaken a study
of the impacts of IPPC. It provides a useful overview of the intensive
livestock industry in Europe. Please note that, because it is
a year old, it is outdated in places, particularly with regard
to implementation of IPPC. The pig industry is restructuring across
Europe, although the UK and Denmark appear to be the worst affected,
and this will have had an impact on numbers. The poultry meat
industry has probably expanded slightly. Attached is a copy of
the Executive Summary of the Cranfield report (not printed).
In addition the Agency will carry out further
research into IPPC and European Member States. This will cover
an overview of implementation of IPPC, financial issues, substantial
change, permitting of installations, time periods, links with
other regimes, site restoration and special arrangements for _new"
sectors. This
research is on-going. The Agency would be happy to ensure that
the Committee has a copy of the research, once it is completed.
21 February 2000
AGRICULTURE SELECT COMMITTEE
BRIEFING ON CHARGES
1. ANALYSIS OF
PROPOSED IPPC CHARGES
The charges in the analysis below relate to
the largest intensive farming installations, that is, those with
more than:
— 200,000 places for poultry;
— 10,000 places for production pigs;
or
| Cost component |
Application charge £ | Subsistence charge £
|
| Inspection and front line regulation | 6,947
| 3,157 |
| Regulatory services provided by the Agency's national centres and services (compliance assessment, technical guidance, risk analyses, environmental surveillance)
| 2,976 | 1,353 |
| Capital charges on assets employed on chargeable activities
| 361 | 164 |
| IS/IT support for operations, permitting and billing
| 1,278 | 581 |
| R&D and other support services provided by national centres (eg exchequer, training and development)
| 1,053 | 479 |
| Support services (management, accommodation, management accounting, personnel, legal and administration services)
| 2,916 | 1,326 |
| Policy development and national supervision
| 2,738 | 1,244 |
| TOTALS | 18,269
| 8,304 |
The application charge would allow for:
— site visits and in-depth discussions with operators;
— BAT assessments and decision documents;
— assessments of the impacts of farms taking local
conditions into account;
— evaluation of the comments of statutory consultees;
— detailed review of site operations; and
— preparation of pemits tailored to needs of operations
and environment;
enabling the Agency to fulfil its regulatory obligations
under the Directive.
The subsistence charge provides for:
— inspections of the site, checking the permit-holder's
records and performance, recording the conclusions from site visits
and discussing them with the permit-holder;
— check on the environmental data provided by the
permit-holder and ensuring environmental problems are not arising;
— assessing compliance with the permit;
— reviewing site performance against best practice
and changes in regulation;
— reviewing the permit; and
— checking releases from the installation and ensuring
operational plans are being applied effectively.
2. APPORTIONMENT OF
FINANCING AND
OVERHEAD COSTS
2.1 Depreciation and rate of return are allocated directly
to services wherever possible. In the case of multifunctional
assets, financing charges are apportioned according to assessed
benefits.
2.2 Expenditure on IT operational support and maintenance
is apportioned to services on the basis of the numbers and use
of IT equipment by those services.
2.3 R&D expenditure is allocated by reference to
individual projects and the extent to which they relate to individual
services.
2.4 The apportionment of support services to core services
is set according to a range of methods (eg incidence of core service
staff, time allocations, revenue expenditure) depending on the
individual core service.
2.5 The apportionments are subject to external audit
scrutiny as part of the annual account audit.
3. GRANT-IN-AID
3.1 The Agency's grant-in-aid allocation for 1999-2000
comprises:
| £m |
| DETR | 98.1 |
| MAFF (Fisheries) | 4.8 |
| NAW | 10.9 |
| TOTAL | 113.8
|
Notes:
1. The total represents about 20 per cent of the Agency's
total funding.
2. The DETR allocation includes £0.6 million for IPPC.
|
