Examination of Witnesses (Questions 460
- 469)
TUESDAY 14 DECEMBER 1999
BARONESS BARBARA
YOUNG AND
DR DEREK
LANGSLOW
460. You do not think there could be any conflict
of interest at all within the Environment Agency in the appropriation
of various monies to do with what were always regarded as their
core responsibilities, although we might want those to be extended,
and nature conservation?
(Dr Langslow) I do not see that conflict. If you go
back to the habitat restoration targets, for example which come
under the United Kingdom Biodiversity Action Plan, the Government
have made it very clear that delivering those is going to be a
partnership between the public and the private sectors and therefore
between public agencies. It is therefore very important that the
different parties do contribute because they contribute not only
their funds but also their commitment and their expertise. I think
it is important that all of those contribute, so I would argue
that funding should come through the Agency as well as through
us.
Mrs Ellman
461. What changes would you like to see in local
or regional planning to help preserve biodiversity?
(Baroness Young) Land use planning or Environment
Agency planning?
462. Both. You mentioned before the Environment
Agency plans and you referred also to MAFF, that they need to
be involved as well. What sorts of changes would you want to see?
(Baroness Young) The local Environment Agency plans
really rolled on from catchment management plans which we were
involved in drawing up previously. They have been developed very
widely through consultation locally and that is an excellent part
of them. We would like to see the local Environment Agency plans
taking on board all of the problems affecting the water catchment
and particularly we have already talked about some of the issues
that currently generally are not, particularly non-point source
pollution, and all of the man-made impacts on ecological water
quality which eventually the Water Framework Directive will require
to be taken on board. At the moment they do not necessarily; it
varies from plan to plan. We would very much like to see them
widened in scope from that point of view but also more explicit
biodiversity targets within each of the local Environment Agency
plans drawn from the national Biodiversity Action Plan targets
and interpreted on a local basis, looking at what is important
for the Biodiversity Action Plan within that area and then putting
in specific proposals to safeguard it or enhance it if it is in
decline and is part of a process of improvement and recreation.
Those are the two areas where we would want to see local Environment
Agency plans improved.
Chairman
463. In earlier answers you more or less let
the Environment Agency off the hook in terms of what agriculture
was doing by suggesting that it was up to MAFF to wield the big
stick, but actually the Environment Agency has responsibility
for the Nitrates Directive, has it not, and it has got very considerable
powers as far as pesticides are concerned? Could not the Environment
Agency be pushing farmers into habitat friendly methods rather
than leaving it to MAFF?
(Dr Langslow) The Environment Agency is jointly sponsored
by MAFF and the DETR, so it has a direct lead in there. Yes, I
think on diffuse pollution, as we indicated earlier, this is a
problem area where we would like them to apply more pressure,
but I think unless they have MAFF's support to do so they are
not going to get very far.
464. Is that not one of the functions for yourselves,
for the Environment Agency, as bodies, that they have to give
advice to Government?
(Dr Langslow) Yes.
465. Are you satisfied that the Environment
Agency is giving its advice vigorously enough to Government as
to what Government ought to be doing?
(Dr Langslow) Not on diffuse pollution. We would like
them to do more, but I would not say that was generally true.
466. So on diffuse pollution you would like
them to do more?
(Dr Langslow) Yes. It is a very difficult problem
and we all acknowledge it is a difficult problem because it relates
to land use within a catchment and that is a difficult issue to
tackle.
467. But at the moment they are not tackling
it?
(Dr Langslow) Not as vigorously as we think they might.
(Baroness Young) I do not think we should lay it entirely
at the Agency's feet. I do think we all need to push for this
one, because if you look at some of the difficulties that MAFF
are experiencing in terms of even implementing codes of good agricultural
practice, which would in some cases have a beneficial effect on
agricultural run-off and non-point source pollution, and at the
moment, to be honest, in terms of pesticides management, the only
monitoring and enforcement we have on pesticides management in
this country is if something significant goes wrong. The kind
of general sloppy bad practice which might exist and which can
have a significant effect on water courses is something that MAFF
is ill equipped to monitor and enforce, so we have a problem all
round and we have got to tackle it now because it is becoming
a problem that is significantly ungripped.
Mr Gray
468. You do highlight I think one example of
an integrated approach in Wiltshire.
(Baroness Young) That is right. We have had some success
in looking at how we could get water course protection carried
out in conjunction with farmers in Wiltshire, but it is a pearl
in the desert; let us put it that way.
469. Wiltshire is a pearl in the desert.
(Baroness Young) I am glad I can feed you the lines.
Chairman: On that rather doubtful note, we will
at this point finish this session. Thank you very much for your
evidence.
| 
