Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Written Evidence


Annex 1

Summary of impacts of Defra funding squeeze 2006-07

FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT

    —  Reductions in rates of remediation of flood defences which are at high risk of failure.

    —  Reductions in channel clearing and maintenance will increase flood risk.

    —  In the medium term, reduction in completion of asset management plans and structural asset surveys, will reduce ability to target future maintenance.

    —  Reduction in risk based asset inspections.

    —  £1 million reduction in flood warning impacts on flood forecasting, coverage of the flood warning system, public awareness campaigns and exercises to test emergency response and preparedness.

    —  Large reductions in the flood mapping programme knocks on to the flood warning service.

    —  Revenue reductions in studies and data collection will impact on future ability to warn and protect the right properties.

    —  Pre-feasibility studies will be slowed or cut (up to 11 studies per region). These are a pre-requisite for efficient future investment.

    —  Catchment Flood Management Plans will be delayed. A significant amount of flood mapping work has been cancelled with service levels unlikely to be met in a number of regions.

    —  Action on water level management plans affecting the conditions of SSSIs will be reduced and delayed.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

  Impact on our attendance at pollution incidents—There will be a presumption of non-attendance at category 3 incidents with overall attendance dropping to approximately 30% of all category 3 incidents reported.

  This is likely to lead to more incidents escalating since they will not be dealt with promptly. This will result in damage to the environment and a lowering of our reputation with the public.

  Reduced prosecution rate—It is likely that we will have to reduce the number of large and complex investigations that we undertake. There may not be a large reduction in the overall number of prosecutions, but there will be some "big, bad and nasty" cases that we would like to pursue but will not be able to resource.

  Transfrontier shipments—reduced number of port inspections—We had planned to visit a further seven ports in the remainder of 2006-07 to detect illegal waste shipment activity.

  Some inspections will not take place. Failure to detect illegal activity reduces the deterrent effect and may result in additional costs (to the EA) of dealing with returned materials detected overseas.

THE AMOUNT THAT WE EXPECT LARGE SCALE FLY TIPPING TO GO UP

  As a consequence of less investigation of "big, bad and nasty" fly tipping incidents it is likely large-scale fly tipping will show a relative increase.

NUMBER OF WATER QUALITY INVESTIGATIONS THAT WILL NOT BE CARRIED OUT

  The cuts amount to a reduction of funding of approximately £500k in 2006-07. The impact of this reduction will be a reduction in investigative monitoring of bathing water failures and other EU Directives leading to less success in identifying the causes of problems and therefore delays in seeking the required improvements. Ultimately there is a risk that we may fail to meet our targets for improving bathing water and river water quality.

FISHERIES

  Salmon action plans will be impacted.

  Half the funding for salmon action has been cut, 37 projects have been reduced to 25 and the remaining projects reduced by up to 50%.

  The impact will be:

    —  Habitat improvement works stopped (R Tees, R Wyre, R Itchen, R Severn tributaries).

    —  Fish passage improvements stopped (R Ribble tributaries, R Severn tributaries).

  All affected rivers support salmon stocks that do not meet conservation limits so that opportunities to establish sustainable fisheries have been lost in the medium term.

  In many instances, local arrangements had been put in place to work with partners or to contribute to work by others. The loss of funds, as well as hindering efforts to conserve and improve salmon, has also had an impact on relationships with important partners. This will potentially affect their willingness to work with us and contribute in future.

WORKING WITH OTHERS

  Working with Government offices and regions, regional spatial strategies etc—The budget squeeze does mean is a reduced quality in our input to the discussions/partnership working. Less funding means we have less money to support strategic research/assessment/planning/pilot work to bring high quality information to the table to inform regional decision making. If we provide less knowledge and funding we have a weaker negotiating position.

  Regions will maintain a high level of involvement with Regional Spatial Strategies at critical stages, however it is unlikely we will be able to support actions arising through Local Strategic Partnerships.

  We will similarly be unable to support all actions from Regional Economic Strategies (RES).

  Working with others—there will be a reduction in partnership working, projects, demonstration/pilot projects, and strategic development including:

    —  Developing a regional biodiversity strategy.

    —  Promotion of recreation.

    —  Promotion of the health agenda.

    —  Information to inform/green the growth agenda.

    —  Working with the SME sector.

  We will be unable to commit to co-funding innovative pump priming projects with partners.



 
previous page contents next page

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

© Parliamentary copyright 2007
Prepared 23 February 2007