Memorandum submitted by Country Land and
Business Association
1. The CLA welcomes the opportunity to respond
to the EFRA inquiry into the Environment Agency (the Agency).
We represent 40,000 land managers who between them own and manage
half of the rural land in England and Wales. Our members are involved
in many businesses including agriculture, forestry, fishing, tourism,
waste management and delivering environmental services such as
biodiversity and landscape. Many of members have contact with
the Agency through their activities—we therefore have a
strong interest in this inquiry and our comments are set out below.
Q1. How successful the Environment Agency
has been in its role as enforcer of environmental regulation and
controls, and how well it manages its wide range of activities
2. There is a problem where a regulation
which the Agency enforces is not accepted by farmers, such as
the Nitrates Directive—here there is little scientific evidence
for the 50mg/l trigger level that requires an action plan to be
put in place which can heal=veil impact how you farm. We expect
the Water Framework Directive to take a more practical look and
have more science based evidence and measures which are cost-effective.
We consider that this is the right approach to take.
3. We have had mixed report as to how the
Agency has approached regulation on farms—and this is often
dependent on the individual officer. We are seeing some improvements,
but there are still many cases where farmers feel that some Agency
staff that come on farm are looking for faults, rather than assessing
the regulation.
4. We understand that there is a need for
regulatory framework, and that regulation is an essential tool
for a small percentage of poor-performing farmers, but we would
also stress that there are other ways of achieving more successful
environmental delivery, such as the advisory role which we would
like to see the Agency develop further. We are pleased that there
has been a lot of progress within the Agency to try to understand
the agriculture sector through their staff training programme.
5. We would like to see the Agency rewarding
innovation and working in a holistic way to ensure all regulations
and policy mechanism that cross the interface of environment and
farming are join up and are moving in the same direction. We suggest
that the high costs for certification of on farm biofuel plants,
and the over regulation of biogas (AD) do not help innovative
land managers take a new and more sustainable approach to their
businesses.
Q2. Whether the Agency operates efficiently
and provides good value for money; the structure, governance and
accountability of the Agency
6. We are concerned that the Agency is over-stretched
and under-resourced in order to carry out its duties, especially
if we consider that Water Framework Directive implementation for
which the Agency is the authoritative body, will require a substantial
amount of resource if the aims and objectives are to be achieved.
7. We realise that the risk-based approach
to regulation that the Agency has put in place is, in part, a
response to this and we welcome it as a practical way forward—ie
it should target the poor performers, however, we would like to
be clearer about the criteria.
8. We do not agree that the Agency should
increase abstraction charges to fund compensation to abstractors
which have lost or had their licences modified to reduce environmental
harm in Habitat sites. Those licences were given in good faith
pre Habitats Directive implementation, so it is neither the fault
of the licence owner, nor the fault of other abstractors that
environmental damage has now been discovered on those sites. We
are of the view that the funds should be provided by the central
Government.
Q3. Its relationships with Defra, Defra-sponsored
bodies and the rest of Government, including the Agency's role
in the planning system?
9. It is essential that all the agencies
that advise and have contact with land managers work together
and send out the same messages that they would like farmers to
act upon. Mixed messages are confusing and are not efficient ways
of communicating.
10. Where Environment Agency takes a decision
to objective to a planning application, it must be backed up by
sound evidence based science. We are also concerned that the Agency's
recommendations on development in the growth areas which are in
the flood plain are being largely ignored and are likely to have
detrimental effect on the rural economy in that area—eg
surface water flooding of farmland from growth areas and reduced
water resources for rural businesses.
Q4. The Agency's relationship with non-Governmental
stakeholders and the general public, and how the Agency monitors
satisfaction with its services
11. Communication by the Agency through
the regional annual CLA/NFU/EA meetings works well where they
are set up—we would like to see them set up in all regions.
Day to day contact between land managers and Agency staff is variable
but we are seeing an improvement, and are pleased that the Agency
is responding by training their staff on agricultural issues.
We have had positive reports back that some staff are more aware
of agriculture as a business, however we have had some bad reports
as well, for example:
— It has been reported that Agency
staff have been informing the RPA if they have found that farmers
are "over-dosing" their crops with nitrogen fertiliser
in NVZ areas. This could lead them to be deemed "non-compliant"
and there could be a threat to reducing their SFP. We are concerned
as this is not the approach the Agency have taken in the past
to deal with a first offence—according to them they take
the view that a first offence should be a warning with advice
which should be given to the farmer on what he should do to rectify
the problem. We are therefore surprised and alarmed that the EA
are not following normal procedure especially as SFP is jeopardised.
— A letter sent out to farmers which
refer to cross compliance visits was recalled and reviewed due
to insensitive wording, only when highlighted by a CLA member.
Q5. The Agency's responsibilities for flood
defence and flood mapping, including guidance to the public
12. We are concerned that local knowledge
that had a great input into the regional flood defence committees
through the local flood defence committees is being lost. We saw
the need for reform of these Committees to ensure a more efficient
working, but we stressed the need for local input—we consider
that this has been largely lost.
13. We consider that the Agency must put
more funds into the maintenance of rivers and riverine and coastal
defences—we believe that this would cut down substantial
costs in the future flood defence budget Landowners should also
be able to contribute to defences and be allowed to maintain their
defences—eg fill a hole in a flood defence where a storm
has broken it loose, without having to go through a bureaucratic
nightmare to do so.
14. We are aware of the Agency's expected
future responsibility in coastal defence, but we are concerned
that they may be unprepared for this new role.
Q6. How the organisational changes brought
about by the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill will
affect the role of the Environment Agency
15. The Environment Agency must continue
with their advisory and supportive role, as this is the way to
successful environmental outcomes. Partnership working between
the Agency and Natural England will be essential to ensure that
mixed message are not sent out to farmers. The new catchment officers,
which will be both the Agency and natural England, in the Catchment
Sensitive Farming project should reinforce this.
Q7. How the Agency's work in improving wildlife
habitats will tie in with Natural England's work on biodiversity
16. As above.
Q8. The Environment Agency's forthcoming
corporate strategy 2006-11
17. Our response is in the Annex.
Country Land and Business Association
December 2005
| 
