Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Written Evidence


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


 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2006
Prepared 11 May 2006