Supplementary memorandum submitted by
the CPRE, the RSPB, the Wildlife Trusts and the Woodland Trust
(Appendix 36)
1.CONFLICT RESOLUTION
AT REGIONAL
AND LOCAL
LEVELS
1.1The Issue
We agree with the issues raised by the Committee's
line of questioning (at Q511-512), that there are quite likely
to be difficulties in reconciling the perspectives of various
organisations involved in policy development and delivery at regional
and local level, with those of the Integrated Agency (IA). These
difficulties are likely to arise because of the different purposes
of the agencies concerned and their level of operation. The IA
is charged with championing the conservation of the natural environment,
and will be engaged in all levels of the national-regional-local
delivery chain.
A vital element in the delivery of the Government's
Rural Strategy will be the IA's ability to engage with and influence
regional and local bodies. Put crudely, in the event of a disagreement
as to whether the balance lies between economic, environmental
or social objectives, be it in the context of a Strategy or a
specific project, who acts as referee? It is not clear at regional
level who is the final arbiter of Government policy when there
are tensions between economic, social or environmental objectives.
Put more constructively, what can be done to prevent such differences
of view from developing in the first place?
As requested, we are pleased to provide the Committee
with our views as to some possible solutions. We have concluded
that there is no single, simple solution: a combination of measures
will be required, some legislative, some involving use of the
powers in the draft Bill and some using existing mechanisms.
1.2Possible Solutions: the role of "referee"
In the absence of any other real alternative at regional
level, we consider that both the roles of coordinating delivery,
and brokering conflict resolution, between agencies falls to the
Government Offices for the Regions (GOs). This accords with Lord
Haskins' conclusion that the GOs should play a more active role
in co-ordinating rural delivery (Recommendation 24, paragraphs
7.20-7.24). However, this conclusion is not without reservation.
At present, the GOs do not necessarily have the capacity to undertake
this role, and have not been charged by Government with it. At
present, the GOs have little credibility in terms of their environmental
remit, concentrating as they do on social and economic issues.
Central Government should ensure that the GOs take a more even
handed approach, integrating all aspects of sustainable development.
Strengthening the environmental positioning of the GOs would also
be aided by the production of statutory Regional Environmental
Strategies (see 1.3E below).
We note that it is intended that the confederation
of partners that will become the IA should act with a "single
regional voice" in Eastern England from 1 April 2005. As
well as enabling different ways of working together and new ways
of delivery (such as unifying the field staff of the three constituent
organisations) to be explored, and best practice to be identified,
from an internal perspective, it should also explore the external
interface with other regional bodies.
1.3Possible Solutions: defining the "playing
field"
We also believe much can be done to narrow the scope
for conflict:
A. Guidance from Defra. Clause 15 of the draft
Bill permits the Secretary of State to give the IA guidance as
to the exercise of its functions. The inter-relationship between
the IA, and regional and local bodies, should be the subject of
such guidance and should promote interactions between them and
set out the Government's expectations of the bodies concerned.
B. The IA at the Regional Level. The format
of the IA at regional level is in itself central to this discussion
about decision-making. It inherits a very varied regional geometry
from the three predecessor bodies with, in some instances, a poorly
defined and resourced regional presence. We believe it is essential
that the IA is provided with sufficient policy, advocacy and strategic
capacity at regional level to support the delivery of its purposes.
It must be able to articulate and promote environmental and biodiversity
objectives (see D below) and in particular to engage fully with
the development of Regional Spatial Strategies (RSS) and Regional
Economic Strategies.
C. Balancing Duties. Duties on social and
economic agencies to "further" conservation of the natural
environment have an important part to play in ensuring the IA's
role is acknowledged, heard and acted upon. We recommend that
section 74 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 is built
upon, by placing a duty on all public bodies to further nature
conservation in accordance with the Convention on Biological Diversity,
bringing it in line with the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act
2004. This duty would therefore apply to, amongst others, Regional
Assemblies, Regional Development Agencies (RDAs) and local authorities.
D. The IA's Advisory Role. Clause 10 of the
draft bill is also relevant. Public authorities may request advice
from the IA on any matters relating to its general purpose—a
mechanism that we would expect regional and local bodies would
use. In the event they decide not to, the IA may give advice on
its own initiative and sub-clause 10(3) makes it clear that at
the request of the IA a public authority must inform the IA in
writing whether their advice has been taken and, if not, why not.
Again, we would expect the IA to use this provision as appropriate.
In addition, we believe this advisory function should
be extended further: under Clause 10, the IA should be given a
statutory duty to contribute to the RSS, which is prepared by
the Regional Planning Body. We also ask that the IA be given a
statutory right to be heard at the Examination in Public for any
RSS, and also that the IA be given a statutory duty to advise
the RDA's on the implications for the natural environment of their
Regional Economic Strategy.
E. Future Statutory Strategic Frameworks.
We are united in recognising the importance of national level
strategies, such as the England Biodiversity Strategy, in setting
out the strategic framework within which the IA and others are
expected to deliver the Governments' vision for the conservation
and enhancement of the natural environment. Such contextual information
is important in establishing clarity of the outcomes sought by
Government at national, regional and local levels. We therefore
recommend placing a duty on the Secretary of State to ensure such
strategies are put in place and maintained (as in the case for
biodiversity in Scotland under the Nature Conservation (Scotland)
Act 2004). This task could then be delegated to the IA.
At regional level, Regional Environment Strategies
(REnvS) and Integrated Regional Strategies are not yet statutory.
We urge that this imbalance in regional strategic framework is
remedied. REnvSs have a key role in amplifying the vision and
framework for the delivery of environmental outcomes. They should
be central pillars of the emergent Integrated Regional Strategies
prepared by Regional Assemblies and the task of their preparation
should be delegated to the IA in cooperation with the EA. The
environmental and biodiversity objectives identified will underpin
the IA's engagement in all relevant regional strategies &
programmes.
2.THE "SANDFORD"
PRINCIPLE
We would also like to take this opportunity to register
our concern about the reply given by Lord Whitty in response to
a question from the Chairman that was, to summarise, about the
Sandford principle (see Q527). Lord Whitty indicated that he did
not accept that "maximising the conservation dimension should
always override the other dimensions of sustainable development".
We wish to make three points:
First, protection of the natural environment is a
key test of sustainability: if a plan or project results in a
net loss to the environment then, by definition, it is not sustainable.
Anything less risks the continued attrition of the quality of
our planet, and that we will pass on a diminished resource to
future generations.
Second, we wish to emphasise that in most instances
we see little risk of conflict between the discharge of the various
elements of the IA's core purpose. But this risk exists, as we
indicated in our evidence. We believe it should be possible to
draft a "Sandford" type clause that acted as a last
resort, only to be invoked in the event of an irreconcilable conflict
between environmental, and social and economic objectives.
Finally, we believe we need to distinguish between
the Government's role and that of the IA. Surely, as environmental
adviser to Government and a key environmental delivery body, it
is quite correct that the IA should champion the natural environment
in the event of an irreconcilable conflict with social and economic
goals, including open-air recreation element of its core purpose?
CPRE, RSPB, The Wildlife Trusts and the Woodland
Trust
March 2005
| 
