Examination of Witnesses (Questions 418
- 439)
TUESDAY 14 DECEMBER 1999
BARONESS BARBARA
YOUNG AND
DR DEREK
LANGSLOW
Chairman
418. Good morning. Can I welcome you to the
Committee, the fourth of our sessions in relation to the Environment
Agency. Could I ask you to identify yourselves for the record
please?
(Baroness Young) I am Barbara Young and
I am Chairman of English Nature.
(Dr Langslow) I am Derek Langslow, the Chief Executive
of English Nature.
419. Do you want to say anything by way of introduction
or are you happy for us to go straight to questions?
(Baroness Young) The only thing I would like to say
is that we work in very close partnership with the Environment
Agency. I must confess, when they were first formed, our major
worry was that the merger would be a very difficult one and that
we would have lots of lurching around and wheels falling off.
We were gratified to find that that did not happen and, indeed,
over the very short time that they have been in existence we have
been pleased with the progress they have made on their conservation
of biodiversity role, though there are things that we would want
to press them further on.
Mr Donohoe
420. In specific terms would you say there has
been a difference since the Environment Agency came into being?
(Baroness Young) Yes. I think there was a big task
for them to do in bringing the organisation together. They have
managed to grip quite a number of issues quite firmly, particularly,
if I can give you some examples, and maybe ones where we have
worked very closely together, the last water price round, AMP3,
where the water regulator sets the price round for the forthcoming
five years for the water companies: we had a very successful process
with them identifying those nature conservation sites that would
need significant remedial work done on them, and we have just
had the announcement of the water price round which puts another
£200 million into the remediation of abstraction and pollution
impacts on SSSIs. That has been very gratifying. There is also
an exercise that we have undertaken jointly to review the consents
on 358 SSSIs. That is now complete and being published and remedial
action is being taken in some cases and there is further investigation
and identification as necessary on others. Though we are at the
early part of that process it has been a good one and we have
now got a blueprint for what needs to happen to bring those sites
back into reasonable nature conservation in the water environment.
The third area is in the Biodiversity Action Plan where the Agency
is taking a lead on a number of species and habitats, and that
is very gratifying, and they are about to publish a report on
their progress on that area in the spring. The fourth area is
a rather clandestine one in flood defence. Though the primary
objective is flood defence work, a number of the areas of the
Environment Agency have actually managed to combine that with
some excellent conservation activity. It is not universal across
the Agency. Some areas are better than others at that, but they
have managed to produce some money from that budget, which is
a very difficult budget and which is one of the areas where we
feel there is more progress to be made. Those are the areas where
we think we have got examples of very good work. There are areas
in parts of their function, like water pollution, like habitat
creation and recreation, where, for a variety of reasons, we have
been less able to make progress.
421. So would you say that the resources that
were put in are adequate or would you like to see more resources
by the Environment Agency put in?
(Baroness Young) We are always slightly nervous about
calling for more resources, but obviously more resources always
help. Part of the issue in terms of the Agency is that much of
their budget is ring-fenced for specific purposes. At the moment
they have no budget for habitat recreation basically, so that
is an area which we would very much like them to have a specific
budget for. The other area that we would highlight is not necessarily
one that is primarily about budget, and that is the area of the
impact on water pollution and particularly non-point source, ie,
diffuse, pollution on water habitats. There it is more a question
of getting a more strategic direction for the Agency and also
working very closely with a whole range of other organisations,
including MAFF, because much of it is in fact agriculturally based.
That is the area where I think progress would not be dependent
on more money.
(Dr Langslow) Could I add one thing to the institutional
change which I think is important? On the freshwater side we have
seen a progression of improvement on the biodiversity side from
the water authorities to the National Rivers Authority to the
EA, and we have seen a step improvement at each of those stages.
The creation of the Environment Agency has also brought in two
areas, HMIP and the waste management side, which tended to be
biodiversity insensitive. I think the integration of those functions
under the Environment Agency has been beneficial to our interests.
Mr Gray
422. You mentioned it has been beneficial, but
none the less you say in your evidence that the problems of implementing
water level management plans are broadly speaking the same as
they were before. Have those problems been made worse by the periodic
review or better? I mention specifically the River Avon at Malmesbury,
where the Wessex Water pumping into the Avon has ceased because
of the periodic review which will mean without any question damage
to habitat.
(Dr Langslow) There are two separate sides to that.
One is the water level management plans themselves, which we have
been trying to have written to identify a plus for conservation,
and a restoration where that is necessary. There are problems
in implementation. There is often quite a significant cost which
is a MAFF cost normally rather than an EA cost. I think that is
an area where there are more resources needed. There is also the
difficult area of how you persuade, cajole, or, if necessary,
coerce farmers who do not want a higher water level which we often
require for biodiversity purposes. The other part on the AMP3
is very much an OFWAT issue. We argued strongly, and we had a
lot of support from the Agency, for some of the schemes like the
Avon one, but OFWAT was very reluctant to take proper account
of environmental matters. We are concerned with one or two of
the schemes on the edges of AMP3. Having said that, the core of
the AMP3 programme is good but there are parts at the edges which
are not good enough. There are a few schemes missing, the logging
up process is not good enough, and we are concerned at the way
OFWAT has implemented AMP3. It has meant an end-loading for a
lot of the environmental schemes in the five year period.
423. Are you satisfied with the level of co-operation
between yourselves and the Agency? Broadly speaking, I expect
you are.
(Baroness Young) Yes, I think we are. We have worked
very closely with them on a number of joint projects and a number
of those are moving ahead very well. One of the problems in any
biodiversity/conservation set-up is that the relationship between
what you do and what results is actually rather imprecise. Much
of the work that we have been doing on project management, improved
plans, best practice guides, demonstration projects, joint research
projects, operational reviews, will take time to deliver. We are
not yet seeing in some cases the outcomes but that work is exceptionally
good. The areas that I identified earlier are the ones that we
probably need to make more progress on together. Much of the work
that is done at the moment on habitat restoration is done heedless
of the efforts of local staff in areas who manage to somehow in
the delivery of flood defence projects also build in that conservation
gain. That is unsatisfactory in view of the scale of the habitat
recreation work that is going to be required. There are a couple
of things that might help with that. The Water Framework Directive
is going to put quite a big focus on flood plain operation, for
example, and we are anxious to see considerable amounts of flood
plain restoration coming up the agenda. I think that will act
as a useful spur. We would also like to see a national programme
of river restoration and at the moment, as I have said, there
is no separate budget identified within the Agency for that. We
would very much like to see that happen.
424. Just taking that local question slightly
further, in your evidence you suggest that you have poorer co-operation
between yourselves and the Agency at regional and local level
than you do at national level, as you hint. Can you give us an
example of the sort of core end product that that might produce
at local level, in other words what kinds of projects might not
be operating properly?
(Baroness Young) Dr Langslow can talk a bit about
how we have worked to try and improve our relationships at regional
level, but certainly if I can talk about some of the areas where
we perhaps do not get on as well, there is excellent co-operation
between conservation staff in the Agency and ourselves. Where
there is sometimes more to do in terms of getting biodiversity
right into the heart of the Agency's work is in some of the functional
areas like fisheries, like flood defence, where they are not there
specifically as deliverers of biodiversity; they have got a primary
objective which is different, but where there is perhaps not sufficient
account taken at the early stages of projects and policies of
the biodiversity requirements. There needs to be some means of
getting that into the heart of the functions and also making sure
that the functions consult with their own conservation staff and
take their advice to ensure that when a fisheries issue or where
a flood defence project is under way it has very much taken biodiversity
into account right at the beginning. I do not know whether Dr
Langslow wants to talk about how we have worked to develop a better
relationship at regional level over the last few months.
(Dr Langslow) I will perhaps just comment for a moment
on your question. In the real world, if you have 10,000 staff
(and we have 650), everybody working constructively exactly according
to policy and practice, and in the best culture, is simply impossible
each time. Sometimes the issues at a local level are more to do
with the dispersed nature of both our organisations than the individuals
that are involved. At national level it is much easier. You have
a relatively small group of people who see one another quite often.
I signed with Ed Gallagher, a couple of years ago, a concordat
between the organisations and that was very much designed to set
the culture of the co-operation and partnership we wanted to engender
throughout both our organisations. But achieving that at every
level on every case is quite difficult, so you inevitably end
up with the odd bush fire. The other particularly difficult area
for us are the regional flood defence committees. They are outside
the management structure of the Environment Agency and they essentially
take their own decisions according to their statute and that may
not be consistent with the Environment Agency's policies.
Mrs Ellman
425. Are there any structures that link you
to the Environment Agency at a regional level?
(Dr Langslow) There are lots of structures. We have
essentially three levels of interaction with the Environment Agency.
First of all there is the national level where it is more about
policy and some of the processes, overall standards and consistencies
between us. Barbara referred earlier to the review of 80,000 consents
which is currently going on in relation to the Habitats Directive.
It is clearly important that that is done consistently right across
England. We have a major programme to do that and that needs to
be set at a national level. Most of the case work is dealt with
between our local teams and the Environment Agency's area level,
most of the individual cases, the individual site issues. At the
regional level, we have for each government region in our structure
a regional services manager. They interact with the regional level
of the Environment Agency where that is setting either a policy
or a programme for a particular Environment Agency region.
426. How does that work?
(Dr Langslow) It works by having nominated individuals
who work to a programme where there are regionally related issues.
Sometimes those are related to Government Office regions and sometimes
they are related to Environment Agency regions.
427. How do you relate to the link between economic
and environmental strategies being developed now through the RDAs
and the Regional Chambers?
(Dr Langslow) You mean in relation to the Environment
Agency or more generally?
428. How does English Nature working regionally
relate its knowledge and views to the regional economic and environmental
strategies being developed now?
(Dr Langslow) We have for each Government Office region,
and therefore each RDA, a regional services manager and their
job is to co-ordinate our input and our interactions with the
RDA and where necessary with the Regional Chamber. The RDAs are
of course NDPBs like ourselves and responsible to the Department
of the Environment. So we have an important interaction over the
guidance that is provided to them. The Department of the Environment,
Transport & the Regions raises over their economic strategies,
and we have worked hard to improve the environmental dimension
of those strategies. I am pleased to say that the second published
draft is better than the first, although it has still quite a
long way to go on that side. The other thing we have done is to
publish a series of documents by region which we call our Natural
Area documents, whereby we have done descriptions and lists of
issues on the environmental side which need to be addressed in
each region. Just after Christmas we will be publishing some proposed
biodiversity indicators for those regional bodies.
429. Are you satisfied that that is working
well?
(Dr Langslow) Not yet. It is too early to tell. The
RDAs are essentially creatures of central Government rather than
of any regional tier of government because that does not yet exist.
We have had great difficulty, as I have said, in achieving a sufficient
environmental dimension into the RDAs, but the RDAs have been
struggling just to stand up. They have only been going a few months.
They have been trying to obtain a staff group together to support
the boards. The boards are still very young. They are only just
over a year old and it is too early to tell what the impact will
be.
Mr Brake
430. Does the Agency rely heavily on your expertise?
(Baroness Young) Yes, I think it does. We have a statutory
duty to advise it, whether it wants to take advice or not, and
they have a statutory duty to consult us. That is their statute
but there is much more beyond that. Derek has already referred
to the various agreements we have got between ourselves and the
Agency. There are conservation staff within the Agency but they
are always going to be fairly small in number. There is a benefit
I think in having an external agency like ourselves as adviser,
where we can give independent advice that perhaps will reinforce
the views that are being put forward by the conservation staff
within the Agency. It works reasonably well. The point that I
made earlier, which is that what we ought to be aiming for is
for all staff in the Agency to take account of biodiversity conservation
issues in their daily work, is something that there needs to be
further work on. Sometimes the conservation staff within the Agency
can be rather overwhelmed by the functional staff. I think it
is important that we get everyone to see conservation and biodiversity
as their responsibility, not just coming in through external or
internal advice.
431. Do any problems arise as a result of the
Agency relying on your expertise, particularly as have been found
in other inquiries when your resourcing levels are deemed to be
insufficient?
(Baroness Young) I am not conscious of our lack of
resource being a constraint, but that may be an issue.
432. This was raised in the previous inquiry.
(Dr Langslow) I would not have said it is a constraint
in terms of our advice to the Environment Agency although, of
course, if there were more money and more people, there are more
projects we could be involved in. But I am not aware that there
are areas of critical need for us to be involved in that are a
problem. That is where the hierarchy becomes important and the
national level links become important because, quite often, with
a relatively modest input of resources from our side, you can
set a framework which the whole of the Agency operates under.
Chairman
433. Representatives from industry last week
were complaining that it took a long time to get decisions out
of the Agency. Are you happy that the decision-making process
between yourselves and the Agency works quickly enough?
(Dr Langslow) I am not sure there is such a decision-making
process for us because usually we are advising the Agency on issues
and very rarely seeking a decision from them. So I am not sure
we can really comment as experiencing the decision-making side.
(Baroness Young) The one comment that we could perhaps
make, and it is not a negative one; I think it is understandable
in terms of the size of the Agency and the stage of development
that it is at, is that I think there is a huge variability between
the areas and the regions across the Agency.
434. All right, tell us a good one and a bad
one.
(Baroness Young) I do not think I would like to name
names because I am not sure I could name names, but I think there
are parts of the system where we have got excellent working relationships
and things move very smoothly, and there are other parts where
the need for biodiversity conservation being at the heart of the
Agency has not yet perhaps become embedded as deeply as it ought
to be.
Mr Brake
435. Is the Environment Agency's decision-making
process dependent on you providing advice and, if there is such
a thing as a typical request, what sort of timescales are you
able to turn requests round in?
(Dr Langslow) I wish there was a typical request.
We would normally aim on an individual case to respond within
20 days, as we do, say, under a planning application. And there
would be our own internal customer target, and that would be met
probably 95 per cent of the time. Clearly there are a small number
of massive cases where it would be a much longer process.
436. Do you have a formal service level agreement?
(Dr Langslow) We do not have a formal service level
agreement.
437. Moving on to the subject of biodiversity,
in your evidence you have said that some parts of the Agency are
slower to take the initiative to conserve biodiversity. Could
you tell us which parts those are?
(Baroness Young) For a variety of reasons we have
identified already some of the areas where biodiversity conservation
is not absolutely a central part of their function. The flood
defence process is particularly difficult and Dr Langslow has
already referred to that. That is a combination of the independence
of the flood defence committees and the way in which the budget
flows from a variety of sources, many of which are outside the
control of the Environment Agency. The other areas where we feel
we have got more work to do to get biodiversity conservation right
at the heart are in recreation and navigation and fisheries. I
am not saying that it is a disaster area by any means. I think
it is just that there is more to do there to get an understanding
that practically everything that is done in the water environment
has a biodiversity impact of some sort or another and needs to
be taken into account right at the start.
438. Is this something that you can influence
and therefore in what way are you seeking to influence it and
make sure that recreation takes biodiversity into account?
(Dr Langslow) We undertake various joint training
exercises and there are joint meetings between the Agency's conservation
officers and our own staff. Another particular feature we have
noticed is that sometimes there are big, what I call unifying,
projects which involve a number of the Agency's functions and
work. A good example at the moment would be the work on the review
of the consents and authorisations under the Habitats Directive.
That has brought together different Agency functions and provides
an opportunity to build biodiversity bridges between different
bits of the Agency and to help that cohesion and to help our interaction
with it.
(Baroness Young) Perhaps I could also talk about the
whole question of biodiversity targets and objectives. Clearly
we have the major advantage in the United Kingdom in that we have
got the Biodiversity Action Plan which is the common hymn sheet
for everybody to sing from, so there is no disagreement about
what the national targets for biodiversity are. What we need to
do is to work very much with the Agency in helping it develop
ways in which staff at an area and regional basis and within the
function can actually understand the impact of their plans and
projects on the process of moving towards biodiversity targets.
We talked in the evidence about a biodiversity check. Much is
being discussed about rural proofing policies and projects and
there may need to be biodiversity proofing of policies and projects
as an internal focus for the Agency, though we could help and
advise on that.
439. Is there anything further that you can
say about that process? You say a biodiversity check, but what
does that amount to?
(Baroness Young) It is very much linked with taking
stock of what is important for biodiversity in the particular
area or region of the Environment Agency's working and we can
help with our natural areas work on that, and then assessing in
terms of projects and policies whether that will have an impact
on the special interests of that particular area. There is a variety
of ways in which we can help construct that framework.
(Dr Langslow) You can use the principles for the purposes
of biodiversity which were set out in the United Kingdom biodiversity
plan as your start. That provides a set of principles which you
can apply to the various policy areas and you can ask questions
about whether it is a wise use of resources, whether it is a sustainable
use of resources, whether or not there will be a positive or negative
effect on the biodiversity side and, if it is a negative effect,
how can you amend the policy to avoid that.
|
