Supplementary memorandum submitted by
the Environment Agency (Appendix 18a)
Letter from the Chief Executive of the Environment
Agency to the Chairman of the Committee, 8 March 2005
1. I was very pleased to be able to give
you our views on the Draft NERC bill last week. I promised to
come back to you on the point raised by Michael Jack on who is
responsible for water courses and we will do so shortly.
2. I understand that later in the session
you discussed with Fiona Bryant of EEDA our plans to develop new
programmes of work with the Integrated Agency Confederation of
Partners which Marian told you about, and whether we would be
in a position to agree budget allocations for these by April 2005.
These programmes will not actually involve any transfer of funds
between ourselves and the IA and so we are not agreeing budgets.
We are instead agreeing who will do what and how we will work
together to achieve our most important shared objectives. For
example we are defining in operational terms just how we will
bring together the Agency's roles in flood risk management with
the confederation's role in providing land management incentives
to work with landowners on wetland management as part of integrated
catchment management. The memorandum between us is about working
together in our existing roles; not transferring duties or funds
between ourselves.
3. Finally, can I give some further comment
on the question you raised on relative priorities between the
purposes of the Integrated Agency shown in the draft bill. The
overall purpose of the Agency to conserve the natural environment
sits above the more specific purposes and so should determine
how it takes forward the more detailed roles and considers the
interactions between them.
4. In practice, conflict between the purposes
may be rare. The agency, rather than make choices between them,
should be able to take them forward together. The three bodies
coming together in the integrated agency already do this, for
example English Nature provides public access to its nature reserves;
the RDS in delivering agri-environment incentives considers with
farmers the social and economic benefits of entering a particular
land management agreement. However in the very exceptional circumstances
where they need to make a judgement, the Sandford principle (which
itself notes that there are only exceptional circumstances where
there is a conflict between conservation and recreation) provides
a model which the agency could use to help it achieve its overall
role of environmental protection.
Barbara Young, Chief Executive
Environment Agency
March 2005
| 
