House of Commons - Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs

Select Committee on Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Sixth Report

THE ENVIRONMENT AGENCY

OTHER ISSUES

124. One of the Agency's chief concerns regarding the framework within which it is required to work is that of the way in which it is funded. Their written memorandum to our inquiry said, "the Agency is constrained by excessive bureaucracy. The Agency's 70 'ring-fenced' income streams should at least be rationalised to one charging base for each functional area."[238] The point was also raised by other witnesses, chiefly in respect of the Agency's inability to combine schemes for the protection or enhancement of the environment with schemes primarily designed for other purposes, for example flood defence,[239] but also in connection with other 'general' duties such as that to maintain, improve and develop fisheries.[240] Cllr Kay Twitchen of the LGA said, "I think their finance needs looking at because I think they should be freer to set their own priorities and then people like local authorities could put the pressure on them to set the priorities we want them to set and they would at least be able to respond if they chose to, whereas at the moment they cannot."[241]

125. As has been suggested elsewhere in this Report, we believe that the Agency's failure to act in a fully integrated fashion is not due solely to the way in which it is funded. Other problems, such as its ineffective management structure, lack of vision, and poor internal communications make a major contribution to the difficulty which it has experienced in fulfilling expectations of a fully coordinated approach to environmental protection. We have also drawn attention to the problems which arise out of the large number of different pieces of legislation under which the Agency works, many of which are themselves not conducive to integrated implementation.[242]

126. Nevertheless, we are sympathetic to the Agency's argument that, as the Director of Operations told us, "we do not have the flexibility to respond to individual pressures on us. If, for example, we have a particularly difficult spate of pollution issues or a new set of pollution issues become available we do not have the flexibility to deploy resources to address that."[243] It is clear that some of these particular income streams are inherited anomalies. For example, present arrangements require the Agency to recover separate costs for waste management licensing, producer responsibility duties, registration of carriers and brokers and regulation of special waste. These ring-fences mean that it is not possible to redirect money from low risk work, such as inspections on well-run waste sites, to high risk work, such as on special waste. If the Agency does less work on the low-risk sites, it simply loses the money.

127. We see no good reason why the Agency should have to continue to operate under constraints such as these. We recommend that the Government look closely at the proposals put to it by the Agency for rationalisation of its income streams, with a view to determining how such rationalisation can be achieved. Those changes which necessitate a legislative remedy should be addressed by the current review of legislative barriers to integration; those which do not should be put into effect at the earliest possible opportunity.

Integration of nature conservation objectives into all aspects of the Agency's work

128. Several witnesses suggested to us that the Agency was failing fully to integrate nature conservation and biodiversity objectives into its core functions. We received detailed evidence from a number of witnesses, including the Wildlife Trusts,[244] the RSPB,[245] and the Joint Marine Programme of the Wildlife Trusts and WWF-UK,[246] about the Agency's role in conserving biodiversity generally, and in implementing the UK Biodiversity Action Plan in particular.[247] This evidence was summed up by a comment from Plantlife, the wild plant conservation charity, who said, "the Environment Agency is performing many of its current functions with distinction and courage, and has already contributed significantly to the delivery of the UK Biodiversity Action Plan. However, nature conservation needs to be made central to the organisation's mission, and resources devoted to taking a positive role in delivering targets for all relevant species and habitats."[248]

129. Confirmation of this view of the Agency's role in conserving biodiversity came in evidence from English Nature, the Government's chief statutory adviser on nature conservation, who work very closely with the Environment Agency on these matters. Baroness Young, Chairman of English Nature, told us

249

Flood defence

130. Failure fully to integrate nature conservation and biodiversity objectives appears to be a particular problem in the Agency's flood defence function. Later, when pressed on which parts of the Agency were "slower to take the initiative to conserve biodiversity",[250] Baroness Young replied, "the flood defence process is particularly difficult."[251] This confirmed what we had heard from other witnesses. The RSPB, for example, in a supplementary memorandum, suggested that the Agency's approach to flood defence "needs to be much more integrated with their other responsibilities, such as managing water supplies, and delivering biodiversity and water quality targets."[252] The Joint Marine Programme of the Wildlife Trusts and WWF-UK went as far as to claim that, "flood defence management has been synonymous with the widespread destruction or degradation of biodiversity."[253]

131. Witnesses attributed much of the blame for the failure fully to integrate nature conservation and biodiversity objectives into the Agency's flood defence function to the administrative structure by which flood defence is managed and funded, which the Agency inherited from the former National Rivers Authority. The Environment Agency carries out flood defence work in pursuit of its own statutory powers and responsibilities under the Water Resources Act 1991 and the Environment Act 1995, for which it is paid grant-in-aid from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food; it also carries out work on behalf of local authorities, who repay the Agency from funds provided by the DETR through the Revenue Support Grant. Executive responsibility for that work which it carries out on its own behalf is held by the Regional Flood Defence Committees (RFDCs).

132. In addition, flood defence measures in internal drainage districts, such as on the Somerset Levels, are undertaken alongside Internal Drainage Boards. The exact relationship between the Agency and Internal Drainage Boards is, as we heard during our visit to the Levels, unclear, leading in some instances to an apparent unwillingness by the Agency to consider changing water level management regimes set before greater consciousness of conservation objectives developed. We recommend that the Agency look more closely at the environmental arguments in favour of change to its water level management regimes and the powers and duties which enable it to make such change, with a view to improving its management of these areas to the benefit of the environment.[254]

133. Regional Flood Defence Committees were criticised as a barrier to integrated thinking and action by the Agency. The RSPB wrote, "Regional Flood Defence Committees ... administer around 44 per cent of the Agency's expenditure. However, they are responsible to a single Agency function, and do not take an overview of the Agency's environmental responsibilities. This means that schemes that meet multiple Environment Agency objectives put to the RFDC are not seen in the context of other projects to resolve similar issues. Meanwhile the REPACs [Regional Environmental Protection Advisory Committees] and AEGs [Area Environment Groups] which can take an overview appear to have no influence over the decisions of RFDCs."[255] The Wildlife Trusts suggested that "Flood Defence Committees (and Internal Drainage Boards) tend to have an over-represented agricultural interest which is no longer appropriate given changing agricultural and environmental priorities and their agendas tend to be dominated by the need to approve capital programmes leaving little time or opportunity to address wider strategic issues."[256]

134. We recommend above that the current structure of 3 statutory committees in each region plus the 26 non-statutory Area Environment Groups be reviewed, with a view to creating a more streamlined and therefore more effective structure.[257] Such a restructuring may necessitate the transferal of the executive responsibilities currently held by the Regional Flood Defence Committees to the Environment Agency itself. Our colleagues on the Agriculture Select Committee, setting great store by the democratic accountability which the Regional Flood Defence Committees offered to the current arrangements for the funding and implementation of flood defence measures, recommended that the responsibilities of the Regional Flood Defence Committees be retained by those Committees, working under the "guidance and supervision" of the Environment Agency.[258] We appreciate their point of view, but in the light of the evidence we have received about the inability of the Regional Flood Defence Committees fully to take into account the wide range of the Agency's responsibilities, and the cumbersome nature of the current advisory committee structure, we cannot but conclude that the current arrangements are unsustainable. In any case, given the comments we have made above about the importance of the role and influence of the Agency's Advisory Committees, we do not believe that local accountability need be diminished by any new arrangements.

Funding

135. The integration of biodiversity and nature conservation considerations into the Agency's work across all its functions, including flood defence, is also hampered by the problem of the Agency's funding arrangements which we discuss above. The RSPB wrote, "the Environment Agency cannot properly implement an integrated approach until the Government removes the historically separate funding streams for flood defence, water resources, water quality and conservation projects."[259] They offered the example of the River Witham in Lincolnshire, where a project has been developed which aims to combine storage of flood waters with wider environmental improvements to the river banks and valley. The project cannot gain direct grant aid from MAFF, as it is not deemed a high enough priority. However, despite the fact that the objectives of the scheme accord with the Local Environment Action Plan, English Nature's Natural Areas profile for the Wolds, and the UK Biodiversity Action Plan, the Agency is unable to fund the scheme itself because flood defence funding can only be spent for flood defence purposes.

136. The integration of biodiversity and nature conservation considerations is clearly one of those which would benefit most from the removal of some of the constraints on the Agency's use of the funds which are allocated to them. For this reason we were disappointed by the response of Mr Glicksman, Head of Environment Agency Sponsorship & Navigation Division at the DETR, to our questioning on this matter. He said, "I do not think, as was being suggested in the earlier part of this morning, that one can necessarily say to a Flood Defence Committee, 'We want some money from you, we are not going to spend it on flood defence, we are going to spend it on environmental protection.'"[260] The Agency should be given the flexibility in its use of funding to enable it to combine the objectives of environmental protection and, for example, flood defence in single projects such as that proposed for the River Witham.

Conclusion

137. Notwithstanding our comments in preceding paragraphs, we consider that the problem of the failure fully to integrate nature conservation and biodiversity objectives into its core functions is chiefly symptomatic of an Agency which has not yet clearly defined its role and disseminated it throughout all its functions. As we have mentioned earlier in this Report, it seems to us to be the case that each of the Agency's functions concentrates only on its own work, without reference to the wider objectives of the organisation of which it forms a part.[261] It is therefore no wonder that such cross-cutting objectives as nature conservation and the preservation of biodiversity are not always fully integrated into all areas of the Agency's work.

138. English Nature suggested in written evidence that "until the Environmental Strategy is fully integrated into the Agency's initiatives, it maybe desirable for the Agency's most relevant position statements and programmes to undergo a 'biodiversity check'.[262] Dr Derek Langslow, Chief Executive of English Nature, expanded upon this suggestion in oral evidence:

263

139. We agree that the introduction of a 'biodiversity check' for all the Agency's most relevant position statements and programmes would be a good way, in the short term, of ensuring that all the Agency's functions are required to take account of the implications of their work for nature conservation and biodiversity, and we so recommend. In the long term, however, we hope that it will not be necessary for the Agency to have to undertake such an exercise. Habitat conservation and the preservation of biodiversity should be a key part of the role the Agency sets out for itself in response to our earlier recommendations. The aim, therefore, is for the integration of these objectives into the work of all the Agency's functions to become a matter of course.

Influence on planning decisions

140. The Agency has a number of statutory duties and powers under the Town and Country Planning Act, which are used to influence development and to address the Agency's functional concerns. Its role in the town and country planning system includes supporting Government in developing and implementing Planning Policy Guidance (PPGs) and Regional Policy Guidance (RPGs); commenting on local authority development plans; and commenting on individual planning applications for certain types of development, for example where there is a flood risk, where the development may affect an aquatic or wetland site of conservation interest, or where the application has to be accompanied by an Environmental Impact Assessment.

141. As a statutory consultee, the Agency becomes involved with a large number of planning applications, making some 100,000 responses to local planning authorities in a typical year.[264] During our visit to the Agency's South west region, we were shown several examples of where the Agency had intervened in the planning process, exercising its duty to protect and enhance the environment.[265] Ensuring that flood defence, conservation and recreation objectives are integrated into the planning and execution of new developments has been a particular focus of the Agency's work as a statutory consultee on planning matters.

142. Discussing the subject of integrating flood defence requirements within the planning system, the Agriculture Select Committee noted, "On occasion it has to be said that local authorities have acted in accordance with Environment Agency advice but seen their decisions overturned on appeal to the Planning Inspectorate."[266] The Agency provided us with an example of where this had occurred, a case involving the construction of a dwelling at a site near Portland in Dorset.[267] However, it has been suggested that the Agency does not always fully support local planning authorities in defending appeals which have been made against decisions taken by those authorities on the basis of advice and information from the Agency. Cllr Twitchen of the LGA told us,

268

143. The Chairman of the Agency told us that where an appeal was lodged against a decision taken on the basis of advice from the Environment Agency, the Agency "should be prepared to defend and promote that advice."[269] We strongly agree, and we recommend that the Agency not only get involved in influencing planning decisions by local planning authorities, but ensure that it supports those authorities at appeals where decisions taken on the basis of its advice are appealed against.

Development in floodplains

144. The example with which the Agency provided us of a case where a decision based on its advice was overturned on appeal is a good illustration of a further point which concerns us, which is that of inappropriate development in areas at high risk of flooding. This issue was examined in detail by our colleagues on the Agriculture Select Committee in its Report on Flood and Coastal Defence.[270] In view of the high economic, social and environmental costs of serious flooding, most dramatically illustrated in recent times by the Easter Floods of 1998, they concluded

271

Noting the pressure which the Agency is increasingly coming under to continue with unsustainable and uneconomic flood defence work as a result of such development, they also concluded, "In future, in those exceptional circumstances where planning permission on land liable to flooding is considered, the Environment Agency should have powers to require developers to set aside sufficient monies for the provision of the required flood defence works both at the point of development, and upstream and downstream of it, before planning permission is granted."[272] The Government responded by noting that it "looks to local planning authorities and the Environment Agency to maintain effective liaison on flood risk matters", and that "[ensuring] that development is not brought into use until appropriate works have been carried out ... can be achieved, inter alia, by requiring that development does not take place until the necessary flood defence measures are in place and/or by entering into planning obligations under section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990."[273]

145. The Agriculture Committee also concluded that "much greater emphasis must be placed on the dissemination to the public of locallyappropriate information on the degree of risk to persons and to property presented by these natural processes ... It is only on this basis that informed judgements can be made by the public as to the risks of development and the most appropriate method for managing flood and erosion risks at the individual level, leading to acceptance of ultimate responsibility for personal actions."[274] Its recommendations were that "title deeds of properties at risk of inundation ...be amended to show clearly and unambiguously that this is the case, and this information ... relayed to potential purchasers as part of the property conveyancing process"; that "insurance companies be obliged to provide advice to individuals in flood risk areas as to how to mitigate the effects of flooding, and how to address property and asset claims afterwards to ensure their rapid settlement"; and that "the Environment Agency and local authorities ... ensure that persons at risk from flooding are made thoroughly aware of the warning procedures in place and the action to be taken in the event of emergency."[275] These recommendations were largely rejected by the Government, which relied instead on drawing the points the Committee had made to the attention of the insurance industry and of local authorities.[276] The Agency has, however, now established a telephone hotline to advise householders of the flood risk in their area and of the action to be taken in case of a flood event.

146. Since the Agriculture Committee completed its Report, a further means of disseminating to the public information on the degree of risk to property presented by flooding has become available. During our visit to the Agency's head office in Bristol, we were shown how the LIDAR (Light Detection and Ranging) technology available to the Agency enabled it to create accurate maps of the floodplain. We were told that this information could be made available via the Internet, enabling interested parties simply to type in the postcode of a property to discover what flood risk attached to it.[277] However, we were later told during oral evidence from the Agency that it had received legal advice that to do so may breach the provisions of the Data Protection Act relating to the publication of personal information. As a result, the Agency could be liable to pay compensation to householders whose properties were deemed to have been blighted by the publication of this information.[278]

Conclusions

147. Concern about the impact of inappropriate development in the floodplain was repeated in evidence to our inquiry. Brian Duckworth of Water UK told us, "Anything that is built on a flood plain is a disaster waiting to happen, I think, because here we are, we are forecasting much greater flood intensity and frequency with climate change, so if the Environment Agency can do anything to stop building on flood plains ... I would be very supportive of that."[279] We are concerned about the high economic, environmental and social costs which flooding entails, and particularly about the increasing pressure on the Environment Agency to provide economically and environmentally unsustainable flood defences for new development. We therefore support all the conclusions of the Agriculture Select Committee Report about the Agency's powers in relation to development in floodplains, and urge local planning authorities to take full account of the advice of the Agency where such development is proposed. The advice of the Environment Agency, which is in the best position to make judgements on these matters, should also be given due weight by the Planning Inspectorate and the Secretary of State in the event of appeals against refusal of permission for such development.

148. We welcome the fact that, following our questioning on the issue, the Agency has received the advice that it is legally permissible for the public to access the Agency's flood maps by typing their postcode onto the Internet, and will now be making arrangements to make the maps available in this way.[280] This is in line with the advice we have received from the Data Protection Registrar, that there is no reason why the Data Protection Act should be a barrier to such a publication scheme.[281] However, we are disappointed by the Government's response to the Agriculture Select Committee's recommendations regarding the provision of information about the degree of risk to persons and property presented by flooding, and we recommend that the Government review the adequacy of its response. A further step which we recommend that the Government consider to enable the public to make informed judgements about the risk attaching to an individual property is that of making information about flood risk immediately obvious on such buildings by means of a plaque attached to the front.

Fly-tipping

149. We expressed very serious concerns about the problem of fly-tipping in our Reports on both Sustainable Waste Management and, later, the Operation of the Landfill Tax.[282] Our investigations were severely hampered by the lack of available information on the scale of the problem, but anecdotal evidence suggested a significant increase in fly-tipping was taking place, in particular since the introduction of the Landfill Tax. We concluded that neither the Environment Agency, nor Custom and Excise, the Government or the courts, were treating the problem with the seriousness which it deserved. We recommended in both Reports that the Agency be given sufficient resources to be able to deal with the problem.

150. As this Report was being prepared, a media investigation revealed that across the country millions of tonnes of waste are being illegally dumped in order to avoid the tax.[283] In particular, unlicensed, unregulated sites such as golf courses are being used as tips for potentially deeply environmentally damaging waste. The Environment Agency claimed that it is unable to take the necessary measures to tackle illegal waste dumping at unlicensed sites because it does not have the resources. The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions is reviewing the Agency's funding for the regulation of unlicensed sites, but despite our recommendations on the subject both last year and the year before, and despite the substantial additional revenues available to the Treasury as a result of the Landfill Tax, no additional funding has yet been forthcoming.

151. We are dismayed that this very serious environmental problem should have been effectively ignored for so long. The possibility that the Landfill Tax would encourage fly-tipping was a major concern for environmental groups, local government and the public from before its introduction in October 1996. Regardless of the concerns expressed at that time, and of our observations and recommendations on the subject in two subsequent Reports, the Government and the Environment Agency have failed to take the necessary action to prevent the illegal dumping of waste. In the meantime, untold damage may be being done to our environment. We recommend that the Environment Agency take urgent steps effectively to tackle this very serious problem, and that the Government provide it with the necessary funding to enable it to do so.

Abstraction licensing

152. In our predecessor Committee's Report of November 1996 on Water Conservation and Supply, we expressed our concern about the pressures on the current water abstraction licensing system, which was introduced by the Water Resources Act 1963.[284] Among the issues we discussed in that Report were whether the price of licences was set high enough to give an incentive for careful use; whether the price in any way reflected the environmental capacity of the source; whether licences were being issued too lightly; and whether the Environment Agency had sufficient power to reject inappropriate applications. We recommended that the Government, in consultation with the Environment Agency and others, instigate a full review of the abstraction licensing system, including consideration of the benefits which might arise from offering short-term and transferable licences.

153. In March last year the Government published a paper, Taking Water Responsibly, which outlined the Government's proposals for overhauling the abstraction licensing system.[285] Some of the proposals in this document require legislative change. However, others can be implemented by the Environment Agency under its present powers. The Agency has recently started consultation on the development of Catchment Abstraction Management Strategies, which will describe the water resources position within each catchment and set out the strategy to deal with the pressures on those resources.

154. Whilst we welcome the moves that have been made towards the reform of the abstraction licensing system, we are very disappointed at how slowly this reform has progressed since our predecessor Committee's Report in 1996. Water abstraction is a very serious environmental issue with important implications for the sustainable use of our water resources. It is vital that progress be made as quickly as possible. We will be examining the forthcoming draft Water Bill closely to ensure that it contains the provisions necessary to implement reform. We also recommend that the Environment Agency make the speediest possible progress on the development and implementation of Catchment Abstraction Management Strategies.

Conclusions

155. When the new Environment Agency was created in 1996, the then Secretary of State for the Environment said, "Integration of the environmental protection bodies into a single organisation provides the opportunity for benefits to the environment, industry and society as a whole. The Agency will be judged by its success in turning that opportunity into achievement."[286] Thus far, the judgement must be that the Agency's success has been limited. The conclusion which we draw from the problems which we have identified in this Report is that there has been a failure of leadership in the Agency, and this failure of leadership has prevented it, thus far, from fulfilling the potential which it clearly has to make a significant contribution to the attainment of sustainable development in England and Wales.

156. The idea of an integrated environmental protection agency still enjoys considerable support across a wide range of organisations, despite the problems experienced by the Environment Agency since its creation.[287] However, the Agency risks losing that support and goodwill if it does not make considerable progress very soon.

157. Finally, we note the extreme importance of the role which the Agency has to play. Environmental protection and enhancement are at the heart of sustainable development: as the Government recognised in its Sustainable Development Strategy, a damaged environment impairs quality of life and, at worst, may threaten long term economic growth.[288] The Agency, placed as it is at the point where business and the environment meet, should be at the forefront of the move towards sustainable development. We look forward to seeing an Environment Agency which takes its place as the leading organisation in the process of attaining that goal.

238 Ev p.141 (EA62) Back

239 See, for example, ev p. 46 (EA23); ev p.61 (EA28); Q421; Q458 Back

240 See ev p.25 (EA15); Q381; Q383 Back

241 Q497 Back

242 See paras 27 and 28 above. Back

243 Q625 Back

244 Ev p.46 (EA23) Back

245 Ev p.59 (EA28) Back

246 Ev p.144 (EA63) Back

247 See also QQ398-404; Q523 Back

248 Ev p.67 (EA30) Back

249 Q424 Back