Memorandum submitted by National Association
of Fisheries and Angling Consultatives
INQUIRY INTO
THE EFFICIENCY
OF THE
ENVIRONMENT AGENCY
1. The National Association of Fisheries
and Angling Consultatives (NAFAC) is the national body for local
and regional angling and fisheries stakeholder groups who between
them represent the views of more than 400,000 anglers and others
with an interest in our fisheries.
2. NAFAC has for many years worked closely
with the Environment Agency (EA), and its predecessor the National
Rivers Authority (NRA) and we acknowledge the wider responsibilities
of the EA and what it has achieved, in particular in the protection
and development of fisheries and the promotion of angling. However,
we believe that there is a clear distinction between the EA's
statutory responsibilities to maintain, develop and improve fisheries
and their recreational remit in the promotion of the sport of
angling. In this connection the quality of fisheries and the water
environment generally is the responsibility of the whole community
and not simply those who may exploit it for recreational or even
commercial purposes. Indeed whether or not a "fishery"
is exploited for angling it should be clear that the water environment
is the very basis upon which the whole biodiversity of life depends
and as "Guardians of the Environment" the EA has the
major role in its protection and sustainability.
3. NAFAC is pleased to submit evidence to
this Inquiry as follows.
4. We believe that nationally the EA has
been quite successful in its role of enforcer and carries out
its wide range of activities well given the political and financial
constraints imposed on it. Of course there is a degree of regional
variation and there are many areas in which we would wish them
to be more active but which would require additional funding.
5. The EA generally operates efficiently
and provides good value for money but we would wish that the various
impactors, abstractors and polluters pay more for the damage their
activities cause to the environment. Furthermore a substantial
proportion of any such income should be spent on restoring the
damage their actions have caused and not simply swallowed up in
bureaucracy.
6. We believe the structure of the EA is
reasonable although a good many of our members believe that the
"fisheries" function has suffered following the recent
re-organisation whereby many posts were combined with other functions
of the Agency. We believe the EA does try to be accountable to
its stakeholders through a number of routes not the least of which
is its statutory committees and other organisations like NAFAC.
7. The relationship between the EA and Defra
and the rest of Government appears to be generally very good.
However as "Guardians of the Environment" we believe
the EA should be and seen to be entirely independent and its future
funding should not be dependent upon those relationships. We also
believe that the EA should have greater powers in respect of planning,
especially as far as flood defence implications are concerned.
8. The EA's relationship with NGOs and other
stakeholders as far as fisheries and angling matters are concerned
is generally very good although there is a variation between regions.
Of course it is always difficult to satisfy all of the people
all of the time but generally the EA does well given its limited
resources. NAFAC is actively working with the EA to improve this
aspect of its role and to enlarge the geographic coverage of fisheries
stakeholder groups.
9. As far as flood defence matters are concerned
we believe the EA acts in a far more holistic way that in the
past. Their recently launched Flood Management Plans evidences
this. However, we believe that local authority planners and developers
must be made to accept the flood risk advice that the EA gives.
10. NAFAC does not yet fully understand
the changes brought about by the Natural Environment and Rural
Communities Bill but it is important that biodiversity and the
sustainable future of our natural environment is the first priority
when any changes or planning are proposed. For example where recreational
activities which may have unsustainable and adverse impact on
biodiversity and the welfare of the environment, the Sandford
principle should remain the governing factor.
11. The EA's work in improving wildlife
habitats must be closely related to that of Natural England and
duplication of effort and financial resources must be avoided
through the development of clear guidelines and close liaison.
12. NAFAC believes the recently published
EA corporate strategy is an excellent document that sets out a
clear agenda for the next five years. It is important that the
plans and strategies result in actions and are not simply aspirations
that are not achieved through lack of resources.
13. The points stated above are those we
would wish to bring to the attention of the Inquiry. We would
be pleased to attend before the Committee if required to develop
any of the matters raised.
14. In summary NAFAC is of the opinion that
generally the EA performs its many tasks well but lacks the necessary
funding to do all that we would wish.
National Association of Fisheries and Angling Consultatives
December 2005
| 
