APPENDIX 3
Memorandum submitted by the Council for
British Archaeology (G3)
The Council for British Archaeology is an educational
charity that promotes knowledge, appreciation and care of the
historic environment for present and future generations on a UK-wide
basis. We have a membership of over 500 heritage organisations
and c10,000 subscribing individuals of all ages. Our institutional
members represent national, regional and local bodies concerned
with the whole historic environment encompassing the state, professional,
academic, museum and voluntary sectors.
1. DEFRA'S DUTIES
AND INFLUENCE
OVER THE
HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT
IN RELATION
TO GOVERNMENT
POLICY
1.1 DEFRA has a deeply important and influential
role to play in the conservation of the nation's historic environment.
This is in part recognised by the statutory duty, which the Department
inherits from MAFF under Section 17(1) of the Agriculture Act
1986 to care for landscape and the heritage in the exercise of
its duties. A comparable duty, backed up by a Code of Practice
applies to the Environment Agency under Sections 6(1) and 7-9
of the Environment Act 1995. These duties towards the historic
environment have the same status as those towards landscape wildlife
and access.
1.2 The greater policy span and practical
duties of the new department, and of the agencies which it sponsors
(especially, but not only, in the work of the Sustainability Commission,
Countryside Agency, the Environment Agency, English Nature, and
the Joint Nature Conservation Committee) means that DEFRA has
an even greater influence on the historic environment than its
predecessor. By way of illustration, we would suggest that as
a "lead-body" responsible for the following policy areas,
DEFRA and its agencies have a major part to play in relation to
conservation and access to the historic environment:
— conservation of natural resources
on both land and sea (wildlife minerals, soils, water) which have
inextricable links to the historic environment;
— the management and promotion of agri-environment
schemes, initiatives for rural development and the promotion of
sustainable agriculture;
— policy and implementation for flood
and coastal defence management;
— managing water quality and supply;
— developing policy and implementing
measures for managing contaminated land, conservation of soil
and controlling environmental pollution;
— countryside management and recreation;
— the promotion of the principles and
practice of sustainable development; and
— undertaking research across all of
these issues to guide the future shape and development of government
policy and practice.
1.3 It also needs to be recognised that
the long-term and continuing legacy of losses to the historic
environment (as so compellingly demonstrated for instance by Monuments
at Risk Survey of England 1995, and other surveys, particularly
for rural areas—see Appendix 1), has been particularly great
in areas of policy and activity where DEFRA and its agencies represent
the competent bodies.
1.4 The importance of DEFRA's inherited
statutory duty in relation to agriculture has been more recently
underlined and widened in the Government's stated aspirations
for the protection and care of the historic environment to be
recognised as relevant across all areas of government. Speaking
on behalf of the Government in a House of Lords debate on the
report to Government Power of Place: the future of the historic
environment, (December 2000) Lord McIntosh stated that:
"Great progress has been made over the past
20 years in recognising the important public interest in taking
firm action to protect the natural environment. We now want to
make similar progress to protect the historical environment, which
has significance for us all."
1.5 This has since been reinforced in the
Government's own 2002 statement of policy, The Historic Environment:
A Force for the Future which stated that:
". . . given the span of issues and Departments
which have an impact on the historic environment or vice versa,
the Government acknowledges the need to develop a cross-Whitehall
approach to promote awareness of the historic environment through
all relevant Departments and maximise its contribution to the
Government's programme as a whole."
and that
". . . although the lead responsibility
rests with DCMS and DTLR, other parts of Government have a major
interest in the subject and have taken part in the preparation
of this document. Not least among these is the Department for
Environment Food and Rural Affairs, whose involvement reflects
the importance of the historic environment for rural areas . .
."
2. GENERAL COMMENTS
2.1 The CBA recognises that DEFRA and has
an extremely challenging portfolio of responsibilities, and the
comments and views that we offer below on our experiences to date
are selective. In this context we recognise that direct responsibility
for historic environment policy (covered by English Heritage)
was not transferred to DEFRA along with other aspects of the environment
(covered by English Nature, JNCC, and The Countryside Agency).
However, the Historic Environment IS part of the statutory duty
of DEFRA in relation to agriculture, and of the Environment Agency
in all its activities, and it is recognised as an important strand
of policy for sustainable development within the remit of the
Sustainability Commission (see Annex 2 for the CBA's position
on this issue). We therefore concentrate our comments on these
key areas.
2.2 Whilst we are encouraged that within
our area of interest there are some positive signs of progress—and
in some areas good work being done—we remain very concerned
that at the overarching strategic level DEFRA does not properly
recognise its responsibility and scope of influence on historic
environment issues. Specifically, the historic environment, and
the need to work closely with the national heritage agencies and
DCMS was not even mentioned by DEFRA in its new departmental policy
Working for the Essentials of Life; it appears that it
is not recognised as a core part of "the environment"—a
point made particularly clear by the specific inclusion of wildlife
and biodiversity, but not the historic environment within the
aims and high-level objectives.
2.3 While some parts of DEFRA and its agencies
are conscious of a need—and themselves desire—to do
more to foster the conservation of the historic environment, the
absence of a stronger steer at the overarching strategic level
and lack of adequate resources to cover this area properly (either
within the Department and its Agencies or elsewhere) means that
there is limited scope to achieve this. We recognise that a new
Department cannot assimilate all aspects of a restructured remit
simultaneously and fully, but nevertheless we are dismayed that
existing statutory duties and policies towards the historic environment
have not been clearly recognised at a strategic level.
2.4 At a time of rapid change in many areas
where the Department's policy and activities directly influence
the condition and care of the historic environment—most
especially in relation to the changing face of agriculture and
rural development policy—this becomes a serious omission
that needs to be addressed.
3. DEFRA'S FIRST
YEAR
3.1 Despite of the Department's and the
Environment Agency's statutory duty towards the historic environment,
and the government's aspirations for a joined-up approach to sustainable
development, there are several indications that DEFRA is not yet
fulfilling these goals. This arises partly from how departmental
responsibilities towards the historic environment are not formally
recognised as being shared, although in practice DEFRA's responsibilities
for rural land-use and marine resources policy geographically
affect far more of the historic environment than any other department.
There are several problems that DEFRA have inherited in terms
of approaches and practices. There are some indications of progress
on some detailed matters, but as yet these do not feed through
to a strategic level. There are also some indications of an active
policy of ignoring historic environment issues at a strategic
level. These are illustrated below.
3.2 Examples of Inherited Problems:
— in respect of the English Rural Development
White Paper, English Heritage, unlike the Government's other conservation
advisers, the Countryside Agency and English Nature, was not a
member of the White Paper "Sounding Board"; English
Heritage's work is not included in the objectives and spending
proposals for protecting the countryside; and English Heritage
is not even included in the list of relevant bodies for advice;
— for a variety of reasons there are
several shortcomings in the structure, policy and practice of
how agri-environment schemes have developed, which cumulatively
mean that the current regime is skewed away from delivering as
many benefits to the historic environment as should be the case.
In particular, we believe much more could be achieved through
clearer principles of how conservation of non-renewable assets
should relate to environmental enhancement, better integration
of environmental objectives, and better information and advice;
— despite its duties to promote conservation
of the historic environment under the 1986 Agriculture Act, DEFRA
employs c.10 times fewer archaeological advisors than ecologists.
As a consequence archaeological and conservation advice for the
majority of DEFRA's supported activities and programmes (such
as input and advice on agri-environment schemes, woodland planting,
flood and coastal defence proposals etc) has to come from local
authority archaeological and historic environment services. Such
services are provided by local authorities on a discretionary
basis without core government support, and are arguably already
overstretched;
— similarly, despite its duties and
span of activities which influence the historic environment, DEFRA
inherits a research programme from MAFF which has commissioned
40 times less conservation research on archaeology than on biodiversity.
This means that significant policy decisions are often being made
without adequate evidence or understanding of the impacts they
will have upon the historic environment;
— the Government recognises that the
historic environment is an issue for sustainable development in
its statement A Better Quality of Life, and this has been
further reinforced by its statement on the historic environment
policy, Force for our Future. However, the UK Sustainability
Commission has no members with particular expertise in the Historic
Environment, and has not covered it in its first year's work on
local government, business, farming and urban regeneration (see
http://www.sd-commission.gov.uk/pubs). DEFRA's conception of sustainability
also largely excludes a recognition of the positive contribution
that the historic environment makes to quality of life, the environment,
society and the economy (see Annex 2);
— in the early months of the FMD outbreak
it became clear that MAFF was requiring cleansing and disinfection
work, which resulted in unnecessary damage and losses to the historic
environment. Demolitions of some historic farm buildings took
place; in others internal fixtures and fittings and elements of
historic fabric was removed; and unsuitable chemical treatments
in others resulted in damage. Similarly, in the early months of
the outbreak the excavation of pits for disposal of slaughtered
animals and infected materials, and of lagoons for infected water
and slurry took place with little or no archaeological advice,
and the extent of damage to archaeological sites and monuments
during the outbreak remains unknown.
3.3 Examples of detailed indications of
progress (with potential wider outlook);
— following representations from the
CBA, English Heritage and other historic conservation bodies during
the FMD outbreak better liaison between DEFRA, English Heritage
and local authorities was established and more benign approaches
to cleansing and material disposal were promoted. A small number
of historic environment specialists were seconded to DEFRA to
help provide advice. Although it is extremely regrettable that
irreversible damage to the rural historic environment resulted
from MAFF's initial technical advice, the more enlightened approach
that emerged in the latter half of the outbreak marked a vast
improvement. This illustrates the potential within DEFRA to foster
a more positive outlook and outcomes through better resourcing
and liaison. It is not yet clear that the lessons of the need
for a better network of specialist advice available at local level
have been learned;
— we have been pleased to note some
well-integrated work by the Environment Agency at local level
(eg studies on water levels in the Somerset Levels). But we have
seen no indication, despite making representations to DEFRA and
the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution on several consultations
about the Agency's role and responsibilities, that any progress
has been made to address the Agency's strategy, performance or
resources for fulfilling its general duty towards the historic
environment, or its adherence to the MAFF Code of Practice on
Conservation Access and Recreation (see http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/themes/
for absence of EA's recognition of heritage obligations alongside
wildlife);
— in agri-environment policy we have
been pleased to note the special Countryside Stewardship scheme
for Avebury and Stonehenge and DEFRA's support for digital mapping
of ancient monuments to support application of policy, and the
completion of a research project into the management of archaeological
sites in arable landscapes. It remains to be seen whether these
carry through into more substantive investment in better integration
of the historic environment into agri-environment policy, research
and information and advice support (for our detailed comments
see CBA website http://www.britarch.ac.uk/conserve/agrischemes.html).
3.4 Examples where historic environment
issues appear to have been deliberately ignored:
— DEFRA have not included historic
environment issues alongside biodiversity within high level strategic
aims for the new Department despite the statutory duties and policy
framework relating to the Department's work outlined above, and
despite representations made by English Heritage, the CBA (see
http://www.britarch.ac.uk/conserve/consult.html) and others;
— DEFRA did not include the historic
environment in their consultation about the Environment Agency's
strategic objectives despite their statutory duty under the Environment
Act and several previous representations made on this issue (see
http://www.britarch.ac.uk/conserve/consult.html; the final statement
is awaited);
— during DEFRA's implementation of
the EIA regulation on uncultivated land or semi-natural areas
the initial consultation attracted representations (from both
English Heritage and ourselves see http://www.britarch.ac.uk/conserve/consult.html)
that the criteria for application of EIA should include uncultivated
permanent grassland with no botanical interest because it can
be of landscape value and preserve high quality archaeological
remains. Despite acceptance of this principle in the second round
of consultation this was then ignored in the final criterion adopted
(which is based on floral diversity).
4. RECOMMENDATIONS
4.1 We offer five key recommendations which
we believe if implemented will help DEFRA properly meet its and
its Agencies' Statutory Duties and more generally play its full
part in contributing to the Government's aspirations for the historic
environment, as set out in A Force for our Future:
(1) A more holistic approach to sustainability
and the environment—at its very heart DEFRA needs to embrace
ideas of environment and sustainability which are not based solely
on ecology, biodiversity or natural resources but also include
and value the historic environment. It should ensure that the
Sustainability Commission has both the expertise and the
responsibility to cover policy on sustainability for the historic
environment as fully as other areas of its remit, and that it
takes a positive approach to developing policy in this area.
(2) DEFRA needs to devise and adopt its own
policy statement on the historic environment and require the Environment
Agency to likewise—we believe that an initial pre-requisite
to improving the situation would be for DEFRA to commission a
policy "mapping" project to identify where DEFRA's activities
and responsibilities have a substantive influence on the historic
environment. This mapping exercise should involve both commissioned
research and public consultation and lead to a clearer policy
statement from DEFRA about how it will integrate the conservation
of the historic environment more thoroughly into its portfolio
of responsibilities, and what resources it needs to achieve this.
Given the Environment Agency's statutory duty with respect to
landscape, wildlife, heritage and access in the execution of ALL
its functions, this should specifically be applied to them as
well.
(3) DEFRA and its agencies need to undertake
more historic environment research in fulfilling their duties
towards the historic environment—DEFRA, the Sustainability
Commission and the Environment Agency should all include more
coverage of technical historic environment and archaeological
research that they commission to ensure that the advice, policy
and land management decisions that they make are based on sound
evidence in relation to their potential influence or impact (both
positive and negative) on archaeology and the historic environment.
(4) DEFRA needs to ensure that it and its
Agencies have access to sufficient in-house historic environment
expertise—we believe that whilst the expansion of the archaeological
team within the Rural Development Service over the past year (but
which still only equates to five full-time posts) is helping greatly
to improve DEFRA's approach to the historic environment in this
sector, further rapid expansion is needed to cope with the current
and future policy and casework demands. An even more serious deficit
of expertise exists to fulfil the Environment Agency's duties
towards the historic environment (only one archaeologist at regional
level). The Sustainability Commission has no relevant expertise
in this area.
We urge that the Committee examine
the relative strength of expertise that is internally available
to DEFRA and the Environment Agency for the historic environment
as compared with biodiversity in relation to their respective
statutory duties under the 1986 Agriculture Act and 1995 Environment
Act.
(5) DEFRA has a role to play in supporting
external networks of information and advice—alongside an
expansion of its own core of expertise DEFRA has to recognise
that it has a vested interest in supporting local authority archaeological
services and historic environment records upon which decision-making
is based. Expansion of agri-environment schemes, and in other
DEFRA and Environment Agency casework means that DEFRA is, and
will be increasingly, reliant on local authorities for providing
local archaeological and historic environment information and
advice. This demand creates a resource pressure on services, which
are already overstretched and are entirely discretionary in terms
of local authority provision. DEFRA needs to consider what its
role should be in ensuring their long-term support to help fulfil
its statutory duties and those of the Environment Agency.
June 2002
|
