Memorandum submitted by British Ports
Association and the United Kingdom Major Ports Group
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
We believe that it is important that the Government
should clarify the role of the Environment Agency (EA) in relation
to the management of the marine environment. One of the problems
with the present arrangements is the large number of Government
Departments and Government Agencies which have responsibilities
in this field, so it is particularly important that the role of
each should be clearly defined. The EA has a clear statutory remit
in relation to coastal and flood defence, water quality and the
management of waste. Yet the Agency is increasingly seeking to
become involved in all questions of environmental protection and
conservation, which is complicating an already difficult situation.
If and when the Government's plans to establish a Marine Management
Organisation (MMO) come to fruition, the need to clarify the role
of the EA will become even more pressing. We would strongly oppose
any suggestion that the EA should take over the role foreseen
for the MMO.
INTRODUCTION
1. The British Ports Association and the
United Kingdom Major Ports Group are the associations which represent
the UK ports industry. There are some 120 commercial ports in
the UK and all belong to one or other association. We welcome
the Committee's decision to conduct an inquiry into the work of
the Environment Agency (EA) and are pleased to submit this paper
which comments on some of the issues raised in the terms of reference
for the inquiry, in particular the Agency's relationship with
Government departments and other Government Agencies.
2. The ports industry in England and Wales
has regular contact with the EA both at national and local level.
The Agency chairs a Port Sector Group which meets periodically
to provide a forum for discussion at national level of matters
of mutual interest. We also have regular meetings with the Agency
on specific topics, such as the implementation of the Water Framework
Directive. Our relations with Agency staff are generally good,
and our general impression is that they are helpful and well intentioned,
although their speed of response often leaves a lot to be desired.
3. By definition seaports straddle the border
between land and sea, and most are situated in estuaries, many
of which contain Special Protection Areas or Special Areas of
Conservation designated under the European Birds or Habitats Directives.
Ports are very sensitive to their environmental responsibilities
and the industry is in full support of the concept of sustainable
development. 95% of the country's international trade passes through
our seaports and from time to time ports find it necessary to
develop and improve their facilities to handle the increasing
volume of trade and to adapt to changing patterns of shipping.
The effect of such developments on the environment can raise difficult
issues, and it is often necessary for the developer to spend considerable
resources in providing mitigation or compensation for the possible
environmental harm which his project is claimed to cause. In addition
some of the ongoing operations of ports, such as the handling
of waste and maintenance dredging (routine dredging of existing
channels to maintain a minimum depth of water) can give rise to
problems because of their environmental implications.
THE PROBLEM
4. There is general agreement that the current
arrangements for the management of the marine environment are
unsatisfactory, and we hope that the Government's proposed Marine
Bill will provide a better regime. One of the problems is the
large number of different government departments and agencies
who are involved in different aspects of marine environmental
protection and whose roles are not always clearly defined. In
England the bodies in question include DEFRA itself (who have
responsibility for environmental policy in general and who also
administer the licensing regime under the Food and Environmental
Protection Act), English Nature, Department for Transport, ODPM,
the Maritime and Coastguard Agency and the Environment Agency.
The EA has certain clearly defined responsibilities in connection
with coast management and flood defence, the management of waste
and also with river management and water quality, a responsibility
which will be significantly increased when the Water Framework
Directive is fully implemented.
5. However, the Agency also regards itself
as having an overarching responsibility in respect to all matters
to do with the environment. The opening words of a recent press
release were
"We are the Environment Agency
and it is our job to look after your environment in England and
Wales and make it a better place".
It is unclear how this responsibility relates
to that of other agencies, notably DEFRA and English Nature. This
can cause problems, first because the Agency is becoming involved
in issues where its locus is not clear, and secondly because the
Agency sometimes proposes measures which are at odds with the
policy being pursued elsewhere in Government. We consider that
the Agency is overstepping its statutory remit and is increasingly
becoming involved in, and complicating, issues of marine conservation
and development in which it was not previously involved.
6. The attached note contains some examples
of the problem.
THE WAY
AHEAD
7. We referred above to the Government's
proposal to introduce a Marine Bill which is likely to contain
provisions for the establishment of a Marine Management Organisation
(MMO) which will assume some (yet undefined) role in relation
to the management of the marine environment which will probably
include administering a regime of Marine Spatial Planning. If
the MMO is to be given responsibility for objective resolution
of the inevitable conflicts which port developments can pose,
it is essential that it should be freestanding, and not have links
either to conservation agencies or to sectional interests. For
this reason we would strongly resist any suggestion that the EA
should become the MMO. Moreover the advent of yet another player
in the game will reinforce the need for the Government to give
guidance on what exactly the role of the EA is in relation to
marine environmental protection. The Agency has a number of specific
functions, such as flood defence and water quality, and we have
no problem with this. But many of the issues which it has recently
sought to become involved in are essentially issues of policy
which are for DEFRA to address, assisted, in the case of conservation
matters, by English Nature. In other cases the EA has disagreed
with other Agencies who also have responsibilities in this area.
The advent of an MMO makes it even more important for the Government
to clarify the future role of the EA in relation to the marine
environment.
8. We are at the Committee's disposal to
enlarge on the foregoing if they would find that helpful.
EXAMPLES OF
PROBLEMS
A. Use of Dredged Material on Land
The dredging of the navigational channel required
to improve access to the Port of London and Medway Port will generate
considerable material (about five million tonnes), which is not
contaminated or polluted and would be very useful for use in landside
construction work. The ODPM are most anxious to ensure that the
maximum beneficial use is made of such material, because it reduces
the requirement for quarrying or other forms of aggregate extraction.
However the Environment Agency regard the material in question
as waste, despite leading counsel's advice to the contrary, which
means that it would be subject to the arrangements for licensing
and control over its movements and more seriously, will much reduce
its attractiveness for use in civil engineering work, thereby
undermining the Government's own policies in this area that support
its sustainability objectives. Claims for "risk-based"
or "light touch" regulation do not match reality in
this case, not withstanding some relevant judgements by the European
Court.
B. Maintenance Dredging
For some time the ports industry, DEFRA and
English Nature have been in discussions about the handling of
maintenance dredging in areas which have been designated under
the Habitats Directive. A protocol was eventually agreed whereby
the ports in question would put arrangements in place to enable
English Nature to assess the effect, if any, of the dredging on
protected sites. The protocol was agreed in principle but it was
decided it should be trialed in three locations before it was
brought into general use. The trials were well advanced when the
Environment Agency insisted that they also became involved, and
as a result of their intervention significant further work was
required. We remain unclear as to what their role is in this particular
matter, given that English Nature is the statutory advisor to
Government on nature conservation matters (such as the Habitats
Directive).
C. New Tower Pier
When the New Tower Pier was built by the PLA
the EA insisted that glass paving inserts be included in the concrete
bank seat (from which the brows lead to the pontoon) to allow
illumination of the foreshore beneath, supposedly for the benefit
of the fauna thereon. The resulting redesign added cost and delay
but was of modest, if any, value since the sunlight comes from
the opposite side of the river. The result of this was significant
cost, all borne by public bodies, with no commensurate benefit.
Nor was it clear why the EA had a responsibility to seek to benefit
the fauna in question.
D. Bird Roosts on the Thames
The EA insisted that barges be left on moorings
on the Thames at Wandsworth to serve as bird roosts, although
this was subsequently criticised by English Heritage who thought
that it damaged local archaeological interest. Similarly, the
Agency required two remaining piles of the old Battersea Festival
Pier to remain derelict and unsightly, on the grounds that birds
use them as perches. Again, the Agency's role was not clear.
E. Trimley Marshes
English Nature have designated two SPAs on this
site, one on either side of the sea defences. The EA opposed the
designations, but were eventually overruled. When the Port of
Felixstowe proposed to undertake sea defence work in order to
protect the two SPAs the EA refused them consent. The issue was
eventually resolved, but it provided a good illustration of two
agencies in disagreement with each other with no means of settling
the matter in a sensible way.
F. Cathodic Protection
EA, when consulted by DEFRA on FEPA Construction
Licence applications have objected to the use of sacrificial cathodic
protection for steel sheet piling. Despite this matter having
been raised with them some two years ago, both formally through
the Port Sector Group and informally locally, no scientific argument
has been put forward as to why such a system of protection should
not be utilised. It is recognised as one of the most economic
solutions to the problem of accelerated low water corrosion. Despite
discussions this objection is being maintained on newer applications,
with no justification produced.
British Ports Association and the United Kingdom
Major Ports Group
December 2005
| 
