Memorandum submitted by the National Farmers'
Union
INTRODUCTION
1. The National Farmers' Union (NFU) welcomes
this opportunity to submit evidence to the EFRA Select Committee
inquiry on the Environment Agency. The NFU represents the interests
of 55,000 farmers and growers across England and Wales. We and
our membership, have frequent meetings with the Agency at all
scales of its operation, and feel well able to respond to the
Committee's inquiry.
2. The Select Committee inquiry is launched
at an important time for the Environment Agency: implementation
of Lord Haskins proposals to "modernise rural delivery"
and in particular establish Natural England is on-going; Defra
has launched its strategy for regulation and charging "Partners
for Success" 29 November; and, the tide of environmental
regulation and cross-compliance obligations shows little sign
of abating. In this context the performance of the Environment
Agency and how it achieves the outcomes set for it by Ministers
is of great importance to farmers and growers.
3. We have chosen to respond in turn to
the questions raised in the invitation to submit evidence. We
will of course be pleased to enlarge on this submission should
we be requested to do so.
1. How successful has the Environment Agency
been in its role as enforcer of environmental regulation and controls;
how well does it manage its wide range of activities?
4. The Environment Agency is the competent
authority for a wide range of regulations of direct relevance
to the farming and horticultural communities (eg the Nitrates
Directive, Environmental Protection Act, IPPC Directive and the
Groundwater regulations). This growing range of regulations is
itself a challenge—not only for farmers who have to adapt
their business practice, but also for the EA's inspectors who
must competently inspect compliance and advice on best practice.
During 2005, aspects of the Agency's regulatory inspections have
fallen within the scope of CAP cross-compliance and EU rules about
inspection reporting complied with.
5. We would prefer that the Environment
Agency is not evaluated on its performance as an "enforcer".
Our preference is that the Agency achieves its defined outcomes—in
the case of the Environment Agency, a well managed countryside
with reducing levels of pollution, set out in its Vision[14]
document—using a range of approaches, most often advice,
best practice and explanation.
6. Therefore we welcome the Environment
Agency's effort to improve the agricultural knowledge and capability
of its staff via training courses and recruitment programmes.
Such training will assist the Agency deliver regulatory services
to the farming community. Evidence we have gathered in East Anglia
during autumn 2004 suggests that relationships have improved due
to this type of training.
7. However, with the increasing importance
of agriculture in the Agency's work, such important initiatives
must be maintained; recruiting staff with agricultural backgrounds
can also result in a more effective agricultural inspection programme.
We understand that new recruits to the Environment Management
teams are given an initial rigorous training programme—but
this initial training should not be a one-off. With increasing
demands on Agency staff time, we fear that training requirements
can be neglected and personal development needs not delivered.
This is especially important for front line agricultural inspection
staff. For example those involved in cross-compliance compliance
should be encouraged to undertake the FACTS training course, as
this would greatly improve the agronomic knowledge required for
effective NVZ inspections.
2. Does the Agency operate efficiently and
provide good value for money?
8. The Committee's question raises important
issues of how to evaluate the Agency's effectiveness and efficiency.
We share the objective that the Environment Agency should operate
both effectively and efficiently—with Government policy
now seeking cost-recovery for regulation, farmers will benefit
indirectly from efficient Agency operation. Efficient and effective
operation should mean that the Agency's environmental outcomes
are achieved at the lowest cost to the taxpayer and to those who
are regulated.
Consequently the type of activities we would
expect an effective regulator to take would include:
— Focusing inspections action where
non-compliance is anticipated or risks are greatest (eg targeting
visits to those businesses operating in high risk areas, and/or
operating higher risk activities).
— Supporting compliance with non-regulatory
advisory services and practical demonstrations of good practice.
— Using enforcement only where negligent
action and/or alternative remedies are unlikely to result in the
desired outcome.
9. Consequently, we do not believe that
the Agency's effectiveness should be evaluated simply against
its operating costs, the number of prosecutions or staff numbers.
Rather we assess the Agency on the quality of relations with the
farming and horticultural communities and its contribution to
the sector's environmental performance.
10. We are concerned, therefore, that an
increasing emphasis on the Environment Agency as a regulator can
undermine its effectiveness. We have received worrying reports
that some inspections have been mechanistic or inflexible. An
example of this has been the use some EA inspectors make of Defra's
increasingly outdated RB209 guidance[15]
on fertiliser recommendations for crops. This guidance is not
a definitive rule as some EA inspectors appear to regard it but
a backstop in cases where agronomic advice is lacking (newer varieties
of wheat and barley show different yield response to those typically
used in RB209). As highlighted above, staff would operate more
effective if they had more appropriate training and background
knowledge and interest in their key subject areas such as agriculture.
3. The structure, governance and accountability
of the Agency
11. We have a good working relationship
with the Environment Agency across its operation. It is clear
to us that it is genuinely committed to work with and understand
the farming community. We have highlighted above the Agency's
efforts to train its front-line staff, which is supported by a
farm-focused policy unit which has good links to the Agency's
Board. This relationship is important to us and has allowed us
to discuss candidly some of the very real challenges farmers and
growers will face, such as the introduction of the Agricultural
Waste regulations. During our discussions we have highlighted
our anxiety over the apparent conflict between the Agency as advisor
and regulator.
12. While these institutional arrangements
are important, it is also important that the Agency maintains
accountability directly with the farming community. In this respect
its Regional Environment Protection Advisory Committees (REPACs)
are an important link with local people; that each REPAC has farmer
representation and that REPACs have a real opportunity to comment
on Environment Agency policy is welcome. The Committee may wish
to explore the performance of REPACs during its inquiry.
4. Its relationships with Defra, Defra-sponsored
bodies and the rest of Government, including the Agency's role
in the planning system.
13. We have become aware of some tensions
between the Environment Agency and Defra in recent years. The
most apparent of these has been differences about the interpretation
of the EU Waste Framework Directive for agricultural wastes, and
in particular the treatment of manures and slurries. While healthy
discussion is to be welcomed, these differences have left some
in the farming community wondering which level of government is
making policy, and which delivering policy: a distinction on which
Lord Haskins made valuable conclusions.
5. The Agency's relationship with non-Governmental
stakeholders and the general public, and how the Agency monitors
satisfaction with its services.
14. Our impression is that the general public
still lack awareness of the full range of the Agency's responsibilities,
many think that it is responsible for flooding issues only. The
Agency's relationship with farmers is also confused. The organisation
has promoted itself to agriculture as working with farmers to
achieve positive outcomes but the onset of cross-compliance inspections
has re-opened the prospect of the Agency as a penalising regulator
(even though it is the RPA is in fact the Agency determining whether
a penalty should be applied).
15. Another example of farmer confusion
is over fly-tipping, a very serious issue across the country.
The so called "new and easier" way that Agency was going
to prosecute fly-tippers appears to be at best inconsistent, even
within a single county. In reality unless the landowner sees the
fly-tippers they appear to have little support. Some Devon farmers
report that local EA staff will not deal with minor dumps (ie
10 bags of mixed waste dumped on an SSSI, SPA, SAC is considered
"minor"), instead farmers are referred to the local
District Council. However in other parts of Devon, Agency staff
helped to remove fly-tipped waste. The message that comes across
here is that of inconsistency, even within counties, and a lack
of co-ordination with local authorities.
6. The Agency's responsibilities for flood
defence and flood mapping, including guidance to the public
16. The Agency's work on flood and especially
coastal defence has received a mixed reception from farmers and
growers. Generally all would agree that this work has been high
profile and achieved good awareness, even if the Agency's ambition
to raise water levels for biodiversity reasons conflicts with
productivity objectives. For example, in the Gloucester area,
the Agency has done good work in maintaining flood defences and
swift action at necessary times has been appreciated. However,
their communication could be improved to members of the public,
as could the inference that urban flooding is caused by unsustainable
land management.
17. The scale of budgets allocated to maintenance
of river banks and drainage systems is a real concern. The reduced
scale of spending allocated to maintenance can result in unmanaged
and unpredictable flooding combined with a reduced storage capacity.
Similar concerns have been raised in respect
to coastal defences, where a combination of reduced budgets and
a greater priority for biodiversity conservation appears to be
undermining vital coast protection standards. Communication of
the Environmental Agency's policy and in particular maintenance
standards is critical information for those farming and living
in vulnerable locations.
7. How will the organisational changes brought
about by the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill affect
the role of the Environment Agency?
18. The introduction of a new influential
land management agency, Natural England, will present communication
and co-ordination challenges for both organisations. As yet we
are unclear neither how the two organisations will co-ordinate
their operations nor how land managers will be expected to differentiate
their services. While some have characterised the Environment
Agency as the regulator and Natural England as the advisor, we
know that this is not only inaccurate but also undesirable, for
reasons set out above.
8. How will the Agency's work in improving
wildlife habitats tie in with Natural England's work on biodiversity?
19. For the reasons set out above, we too
will take a close interest in this aspect of the two organisations
work.
SUMMARY
20. In conclusion we welcome this opportunity
to submit evidence to the Select Committee. The Inquiry is timely
and well focused, as the work of the Environment Agency has very
real implications for the farming and horticultural communities.
We have seen a marked improvement in face-to-face contact between
agency staff and farmers in recent years and believe that this
is bringing benefits for the Environment Agency's desired outcomes
set out in its vision. We have also valued our contact over forthcoming
environmental legislation, notably the implementation of the agricultural
waste, IPPC and Water Framework Directives.
21. Having said this, we are concerned that
the Environment Agency's undisguised regulation role and at the
same time desire to act as an advisor is becoming increasingly
unsustainable. At a time when farmers can loose significant proportions
of the Single Payment for minor technical infringements of cross-compliance
requirements, their willingness to engage with the Agency must
be constrained. If the Agency is to retain constructive contact
with the farming community at farm level it must maintain a well
informed, technically competent and motivated workforce focused
on environmental outcomes, rather than enforcement and penalty.
National Farmers' Union
December 2005
14 http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/commondata/acrobat/vision.pdf. Back
15
http://www.defra.gov.uk/environ/pollute/rb209/. Back
| 
