Examination of Witnesses (Questions 160-179)
MR JAMES
MARSDEN, DR
ALASTAIR BURN
AND MS
ALISON TYTHERLEIGH
18 JANUARY 2006
Q160 Mr Williams: What are Natural
England's priorities for implementing the Catchment Sensitive
Farming Programme and how do they fit in with the Agency's priorities,
and who takes precedence in a case of conflict?
Mr Marsden: If I could start by
saying there are some differences in timeline here, which is a
fact we have to work with. The timeline for delivery of the Water
Framework Directive is 2015. Natural England will have some rather
shorter time horizons, around 2010 for the delivery of the public
service agreement on SSSIs and for Natura 2000 under the Habitats
Directive. However, all of those protected sites exist in catchments.
That, too, is a fact. So one will contribute to the other and
in drawing up jointly the list of priority catchments—and
there are 40 which the Minister, Elliot Morley, announced on 21
December—we worked very closely with the Environment Agency
to look at the juxtaposition of the characterisation exercise
which was done and published for phase one of the characterisation
under the Water Framework Directive and our own prioritisation
of which protected areas were most affected by diffuse pollution
from agriculture and needed urgent attention ahead of that 2010
timeline. The result of that is that the vast majority, but not
all, of those special sites are included within the 40 catchments.
That is how we are proceeding. We are about to start recruiting
next week the team of staff which will jointly deliver the Catchment
Sensitive Farming initiative announced by the Minister before
Christmas.
Q161 Mr Williams: We have been told
in previous evidence that sometimes the Environment Agency has
a difficulty in getting a balance between its policing role and
its advisory role. What advice would you give the Agency about
how they are going to handle these issues and still keep on board
the commitment and support of the stakeholders?
Mr Marsden: Could I start on that,
and then I am going to pass over to Alison. This is an area where
the Environment Agency would clearly like to do some more work
on the advisory side in terms of the mix of advice, incentive
and regulation. The incentivisation is for Natural England to
deliver and the balance in that troika, which is a partnership
across the two organisations, is a very keen one. There are going
to be some areas where in the longer term we are going to need
to see some regulation, and diffuse pollution is one of them in
the longer term. In the short term, we need to give advice and
incentives. The advisory role through the Catchment Sensitive
Farming officers will be a shared one. We have integrated some
of the Environment Agency's recently appointed farm advisors into
the cohort of Catchment Sensitive Farming officers who will be
appointed, hopefully in March. We have also integrated the four
Catchment advisors who are doing the pilot work on the multi-agency
scheme which we kicked off in April. So that has happened; that
is done. In addition, the RDS, as it comes into Natural England,
has an existing programme of farm advice. That comes into Natural
England, and I will pass over to Alison now, who will talk about
how that will be integrated with the Environment Agency.
Ms Tytherleigh: The key certainly
for RDS's work is liaising with farmers and getting farmers to
take up schemes and agreements, and we need to work very closely
with the Environment Agency to have that balance between the incentive
and regulation. There are plenty of really good examples of where
we currently work on that and through the Farm Demonstration Programme,
RDS have had regional farm coordinators who have been working
in the Environment Agency to liaise with farmers on looking at
how to tackle the issues of diffuse pollution, both using agri-environment
and the issues around regulation and the use of regulation. So
there is a good balance there.
Q162 Mr Williams: So you think that
by integrating staff in the model you have described, there are
not going to be different messages from either organisation which
might confuse farmers?
Mr Marsden: Could I be very clear
on the point about the Catchment Sensitive Farming initiative,
where you started, Mr Williams, the integration is such that we
are jointly appointing these staff. They are coming from the Environment
Agency, RDS and English Nature, and maybe some from the Countryside
Agency, and they will come together to form a group of 40-odd
staff who will deliver this initiative. In addition, there will
be about four of the Environment Agency's own agriculture advice
team outwith that programme but working very much alongside. Then
there will be some associates from other bodies, such as the Farming
and Wildlife Advisory Group (FWAG), the Rivers Trust, and so forth,
working in a joined up, coordinated way under the auspices of
this to deliver the initiative. So that is the Catchment Sensitive
Farming initiative, which is a big new advice programme. There
are existing advice programmes, which Alison has touched on, and
those, too, will be under review very shortly by Defra.
Mr Williams: Thank you.
Q163 Chairman: In your evidence,
in paragraph 5.3, you say: "It is important that this Directive"
(meaning the Water Framework Directive) "is used to achieve
real benefits for people and the water environment, and that the
administrative burden it will place on the Agency should not detract
from commitment to that vision and purpose."[13]
What is going to stop the objective of that sentence happening?
Dr Burn: I think there are two
points to make here. One is that the Water Framework Directive
is a mammoth task. It puts requirements on a vast range of the
Environment Agency's activities, including the need to monitor
what is going on over large areas, and the extent of resource
which is going to be needed to tackle the process of the Water
Framework Directive is itself a mammoth objective which the Environment
Agency has got to face up to. In addition, the Water Framework
Directive is a huge opportunity and there is still a lot to play
for. To give you a concrete example, the way in which the Water
Framework Directive will be implemented is through River Basin
Management Plans. The types of activities which will take place
within River Basin Management Plans will be determined by Programmes
of Measures addressing water bodies in particular, and the way
in which water bodies are defined becomes quite important there
because if you have not defined a water body then the measures
are not going to be there to apply to it. So the discussions at
the moment between ourselves, the Environment Agency and Defra
about how broadly to cast that definition of water body are quite
pertinent and significant. What we are anxious about is that concerns
about the scale of the process here should not interfere with
the breadth of opportunity which a real vision behind the Water
Framework Directive should drive.
Q164 Chairman: Given those discussions,
when do you believe it will be possible to make a judgment as
to whether the Environment Agency has sufficient resources to
realise the vision and potential of the Water Framework Directive,
because from what you are saying things have not crystallised
in such a way that you could make that judgment at the present
time?
Mr Marsden: I referred to timelines
earlier on. There are some pretty critical ones coming up ahead
and they are not all closely aligned. I have mentioned 2010 and
the PSA and Natura. In 2008 we hit the initial Programmes of Measures,
River Basin Management Plans, and so forth. We have then got another
periodic review, which unfortunately comes in 2009, and those
timelines are not as well juxtaposed as one would wish and one
has got to work with what we have got. Those are the processes
we are in. So I think we will know once we see the first drafts
of River Basin Management Plans, which we and others will be heavily
engaged in helping the Environment Agency to draft. We will be
sharing data derived, hopefully, from a shared database through
a geographical information system platform. Alastair and I were
joking earlier on about sending disks by courier during the last
periodic review. We do not want to be in that place; we want to
be in a modern, IT-driven place whereby we have a shared IT platform
which can allow us to share data across, to develop the River
Basin Management Plan, to develop the Programmes of Measures,
and to align the Programmes of Measures with the schemes required
under PRO9. That is when we will start to see how well this is
working. That is the test.
Q165 James Duddridge: Is there a
danger that funding to either the Environment Agency or Natural
England will be cut and the excuse given will be that the other
is doing it?
Mr Marsden: You have given me
an open goal there, I think. Obviously the funding for ourselves
and the Environment Agency comes ultimately from the same pot.
We are all aware, I think, of the rather tight fiscal environment
coming up ahead of us, both now and looking towards SRO7. We were
told by our sponsor last week that there is a possibility that
the Treasury might look to national resource protection as a priority
area of Defra's for a zero-based review. We would find that very
uncomfortable if that were to happen. Added to that, at the high
level we have had a recent EU budget settlement which places the
agri-environment budget under some pressure and we will be relying
on modulation. The agri-environment budget, dare I remind you,
is one of the main tools in our toolkit, both now and going forward
as Natural England, to deliver our outcomes, so any pressures
on those areas are going to be very painful, not only for Natural
England but also for the Environment Agency.
Q166 James Duddridge: Those are really
financial constraints. The other constraint, particularly within
the Environment Agency is the human resource constraint. To what
degree do you think they can outsource either to the private sector
work, or alternatively to yourselves?
Mr Marsden: They already outsource
a considerable amount of flood defence work, for example. That
is already the case. If you are hinting at delegation, and I will
read into what you have said that you are—
Q167 James Duddridge: There is no
hidden agenda.
Mr Marsden: Let me say a little
about delegation then, perhaps, because whilst Part 8 of the Bill
currently in the House, the NERC Bill, does allow Natural England
to delegate, we are not vested yet and we will not take any decisions
about what, if anything, we will delegate or who we will delegate
to until after we are vested and a new top management team is
in place. Our understanding of the Environment Agency's position
vis-a"-vis delegation to Natural England is comparable.
Q168 Mrs Moon: Going back to the
issue of funding and the pressures which you were talking about
facing, I wonder whether what sometimes happens is that when there
are funding pressures people revert back to their statutory responsibilities,
which then leaves a lot of the growth in the initiative and developmental
work, and it just does not happen? Is that something which you
have particular potential for when you are describing your enclave
and the Environment Agency's enclave and somewhere there is a
gap in the middle? Is that a risk we are facing?
Mr Marsden: I mentioned earlier
shared outcomes. Many of those shared outcomes—and we have
touched on a few, the Water Framework Directive, the delivery
of the public service agreement targeted on special sites—are
so core to the Agency's respective agendas that it is unthinkable
we will cut those. We may have to slow the progress in delivery
if funds are really very scarce, but I do not think those things
will disappear. Some of the areas which potentially could be threatened
are some of the nice to do, the desirables as opposed to the mission-critical.
Nobody is going to cut mission-critical. It would be an extreme
settlement that led us into that position.
Q169 Chairman: I think we could do
with a bit of guidance. Looking back at your evidence, there are
a number of areas where you highlight financial constraints. You
have just made an important statement that there are some things
which are the "must do" and there are some things we
would like to be done. Can you try, for the sake of time, to tease
out in a little note to us which are the "must do" and
which are the "desirable" and just put a little commentary
about where the financial pressures come? The question I would
like to ask is, do you think the Environment Agency should say
loudly and publicly if it does think it is under pressure on any
of the "must do" in terms of the finance which it gets,
because obviously ultimately it reports to the Secretary of State,
it is the servant of Defra, but it does have a very powerful role,
as you have outlined, in protecting the natural environment and
working with other partners who are similarly tasked? Is there
a need for really strong spokesmanship (ie stand up and be counted
time) if there really is pressure put on the "must do"?
Mr Marsden: I am sure the Chief
Executive of the Environment Agency would respond forcefully and
robustly with a very strong evidence base, as would her Chairman,
if that were the case.
Q170 Chairman: You would want them
to respond that way?
Mr Marsden: We would wish them
to do so and would wish to make common cause; indeed, that was
the nature of the discussion I had with my counterpart last week
when we heard about the possibility of a zero-based review on
natural resource protection, and I would go further and say that
we would expect to work not only with the Environment Agency but
with our respective sponsors in the Department, in Defra, to work
on that across government, because it is an across-government
issue which needs to be addressed.
Chairman: Thank you.
Q171 Mrs Moon: The evidence which
we had from Baroness Young mentioned the "very rich"
relationship and the need for that to be the nature of the relationship
between the two Agencies, but she also talked about boundaries
and for those to be "written down very carefully" otherwise
there could be treading on corns and toes. There is a perception,
I know, because I talked quite extensively with my local authorities
and the voluntary sector agencies, that the Environment Agency
deals with land, air and water and Natural England is divided
as to landscape and access. Is that a fair assessment or just
a simplification of your different areas of priority and expertise?
Mr Marsden: It is a good high
level assessment. Natural England will have five strategic outcomes.
I will not list them all in full, but if I can summarise, at high
level for Natural England will be about an enhanced natural environment
and better access for more people from more diverse backgrounds
to enjoy. That is what we will be about. In terms of the outcomes,
clearly an enhanced natural environment is number one, increased
opportunities for access to people to enjoy the coast and the
sea, from the inner-city to the sea, more understanding of our
natural world and the pressures upon it and more sustainable use
and management of the natural environment. The fifth I always
struggle to remember, which is really fundamental, an enhanced
quality of life for all, the underlying links across the natural
environment and economy. Much of that which I have outlined in
terms of our programme outcomes which we want to achieve as Natural
England is within the warp and weft of air, land and water. So
Baroness Young is absolutely right when she calls for clear and
distinct roles and responsibilities. That is what we have mapped
out through the Memorandum of Understanding which we attach to
our evidence.[14]
The next step from that, which we are currently engaged upon,
is developing some really quite detailed collaborative programmes
in the priority areas which are signalled in that Memorandum of
Understanding. That will translate into how we deliver those specific
areas jointly and severally and who else we will work with and
through.
Q172 Mrs Moon: So you would not say there
was a tension between the two Agencies and their respective stakeholders?
Mr Marsden: No, actually I would
not. I think there are tensions between the two Agencies and I
have alluded to one already. Another one clearly is around the
agri-environment budget, because we both want a slice of the action.
There is not enough of the agri-environment budget. It is Natural
England's job to deliver through our advisers on the ground, but
the targeting of that will be done in partnership with others,
of which the Environment Agency will be one.
Q173 Mrs Moon: Am I right in understanding
that a lot of the tensions are around budget and the constraints
of budget and who has got the capacity to actually move things
forward, and in particular who you see as responsible for biodiversity
action planning and Habitat Action Plans?
Dr Burn: The biodiversity action
planning process is again very much all about partnerships. There
is a wide range of biodiversity action plans for species and habitats
and there is quite a wide range of lead organisations for each
of the individual Habitat Action Plans and Species Action Plans,
so the fact that you have the Environment Agency leading on some
and Natural England or English Nature leading on others should
not be really a surprise and I think it is an important part of
it. Biodiversity Action Plans will only deliver if organisations
make things happen on the ground. The Environment Agency has particular
responsibilities and is able to deliver specific things, specific
areas of work in certain areas. Take, for example, coastal and
flood defence. It is the Environment Agency which has the capacity
to construct or remove sea walls, for example, which is a massively
important part of preparing for more natural coastal processes.
So the fact that the Environment Agency is a lead in that area
is a good thing, and the fact that there is a mix of organisations
leading on Biodiversity Action Plans is also a good thing. The
important thing is that within each Biodiversity Action Plan group
you have the right constituent parts and that the lead organisation
can provide the lead and the vision necessary for the constituent
parts to then do what is necessary within each of those organisations.
I think the split between English Nature on water and wetland
issues and the Environment Agency is a good thing and we certainly
hope that will continue under Natural England, under our new role.
Q174 Mrs Moon: The Agency has got
the role of "Champion of the Environment"; its website
describes itself in that way. One of the things which people have
consulted me about is this issue of the overlap between the responsibilities.
As you have just said, different people take different leads,
but it is where the resources come from to actually fund that
lead which is the issue I was trying to get at. It is the resource
issue, because there has certainly been a concern that there is
a lack of dedicated resources and it is a case of who has got
a pot of money, and nobody is quite sure who is actually going
to fund this work.
Mr Marsden: The flood risk management
budget clearly goes to the Environment Agency, but Defra expects
(and we share that expectation) that wherever possible the delivery
of schemes to protect human health, life and wellbeing through
flood risk will also deliver other benefits, and biodiversity
is now recognised very clearly as one of those, and access where
possible as well. So there are ways of using budget streams to
deliver multiple public benefits. That is the game we are in.
So far as the agri-environment budget is concerned, that is a
multi-objective scheme and flood risk management is a second order
objective of that, so there are no absolutely hard lines any more
around those funding streams in the way you seem to suggest there
are. What we are about is integration but with, in the case of
the flood risk management budget, clearly very much the primary
objective up front. But if we can deliver some biodiversity as
well through the Environment Agency working in partnership with
ourselves and others, that is what we will try and do.
Q175 Lynne Jones: We have just been
mentioning the importance of partnership. In your Memorandum of
Understanding you also mention the risk of duplication. One area
which might highlight this is responsibility for saltmarsh and
mudflat Habitat Action Plans being with the Environment Agency
and English Nature leading on wetland Habitat Action Plans. What
is the rationale for this split, what are the problems, and could
it be organised differently?
Mr Marsden: Perhaps I will start
with the saltmarsh and then ask Alastair to deal with the wetland.
We have been talking just now about flood risk management and
flood risk management schemes. If you build a hard sea defence,
typically if there was a saltmarsh in front of it before there
will not be for much longer because it will erode.
Q176 Lynne Jones: We actually visited
and saw that.[15]
Mr Marsden: Indeed, and thank
you for reminding me that you did. I am sorry I was not with you
that day, but I hear it went very well. What we need to do is
to realign and to make better use of soft defence. In that way
we can recreate some saltmarsh if the topographic conditions allow.
Indeed, the Environment Agency has a target to do so in the Defra
guidance. More often than not, it is actually an Environment Agency
scheme which is required to deliver saltmarsh habitat because
we are either walking away from, or doing managed realignment
in a considered way with, an existing flood defence structure.
More often than not, that is the case when we need to recreate
saltmarsh. We are moving the line back. In wetland recreation
the circumstances are slightly different. I am sure Alastair will
wish to talk about the vision work we are doing at a strategic
level with the Environment Agency as well as the specifics.
Dr Burn: Just to pick up on the
point about why English Nature should lead on wetland Habitat
Action Plans and the Environment Agency on certain others, I think
it is logical. Obviously there is a big distinction between the
types of habitat we are dealing with under the wetland Habitat
Action Plan, which includes things like reedbeds and grazing marsh,
fens and bogs. Those are quite different habitats with quite different
needs and very different pressures from saltmarsh and mudflats.
I think this gets to one of the nubs of the difference between
English Nature's responsibilities and those of the Environment
Agency in this area, and that is when it comes to assessing technical
habitat requirements (and particularly technical habitat recreation
requirements) in those quite tricky areas the expertise and weight
of knowledge sits with English Nature and the partner organisations
on the wildlife and biodiversity side. So it is fairly natural
that we should take the lead on that. But again, as I said before,
the Environment Agency sits on the same Habitat Action Plan group
and it has a role in delivering on that. The Environment Agency
leads on, I think, about five different Habitat Action Plans so
its responsibilities here are not confined to saltmarsh and mudflats.
One where it has another lead responsibility is on lakes, and
there again the logic in the Environment Agency having the lead
there is that, in contrast to the sort of wetland habitats we
have just been describing where most of the problems are to do
with the need to recreate and restore, in the case of lakes we
are not by and large seeking to create new lakes but we are seeking
to restore existing lakes to a good or even better condition.
The nature of the actions which are needed there again fall to
the sorts of activities which the Environment Agency is engaged
in, so things like water quality issues and water resources issues
are the things which need to be tackled. The need for vision there
is exemplified through the evidence we gave you in relation to
the Water Framework Directive, where at the moment relatively
few lakes are listed as water bodies under the Water Framework
Directive and one of the things we need to see is engagement by
all parts of the Agency to bring the importance of the lakes Habitat
Action Plan, for example, up the agenda so that it is equally
there amongst those who are dealing with, say, the Water Framework
Directive and setting objectives and visions under that.
Q177 Lynne Jones: So you are entirely
satisfied that there is a logic in arranging that?
Dr Burn: I think there is a logic.
Q178 Lynne Jones: There is not a
risk of duplication? The fact that you are working in partnership
avoids duplication?
Dr Burn: I think it is because
of the differences in responsibilities that we have. We have a
role to play in the saltmarsh Habitat Action Plan and the Environment
Agency has a role to play in the wetland Habitat Action Plan.
The important thing is making sure that all parts of both organisations
take on board what they need to do to achieve those. It is worth
just mentioning, if I could, Chairman, the fact that we are, with
RSPB and the Environment Agency, developing a vision for water
and wetlands, which is essentially our collective view as to what
the water and wetland environment should look like in 50 years'
time.
Q179 Chairman: I am sorry, I am a
bit confused. Just help me to understand. I apologise to my colleague
for interrupting her thought process, but if you take an SSSI
which includes a wetland, a saltmarsh and a river estuary and
you have a responsibility for SSSIs, do you then have to work
with the Environment Agency on the other bits which may be included
in that area because they have primary responsibility for those?
Mr Marsden: Absolutely, and it
would be very strange if we did not. The situation which you describe
is, I should think, daily played out across England. It is routine
for us. The Environment Agency and ourselves are very clear about
what we have to do to help us help Defra deliver on the SSSI/PSA
target. We meet regularly, we discuss the remedies required which
are going to switch the condition state of those SSSIs from red
(unfavourable) to green (favourable). We discuss that regularly,
routinely. The Environment Agency knows what it needs to do, it
has a plan to achieve it and it is working with us and reporting
through to a director in Defra, through the major landowners'
group, to achieve that. That is on the land they directly own,
which is actually rather small. They have a far bigger influence,
as you rightly point out, through their regulatory role and there
we have a parallel set of processes which are part of the same
governance I have talked about. The first and possibly the most
important is the review of the consents process under the Habitats
Directive where you may, I am sure, know that the Environment
Agency has a duty to review, modify or revoke its consents which
may have an adverse effect on the integrity of those Natura 2000
sites, the highest level of protection for biodiversity. We are
well into that process, and indeed this year I think the first
tranche of key decisions on the priority sites over that review
of consents will come to light. So that is at the strategic level,
but in terms of their routine operations they need to consult
us and we have a discourse. It is not an overlap, it is not duplication,
it is how we do our job.
13 Ev 71 Back
14
Ev 73 Appendix 1 Back
15
The Committee visited Abbotts Hall Farm, Essex, 30 November 2005. Back
|
