Memorandum submitted by the Environment
Agency (ELD 19)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
— most of the Committee's issues apply
to Defra;
— we think the Directive should apply
to Sites of Special Scientific Interest;
— the Directive may cost us £700,000
per year. This depends on how many cases are caught and excludes
options to make us the competent authority for land. We have some
reservations about this.
1. The Committee is looking at Defra's implementation
of the Environmental Liability Directive under six headings, several
of which fall totally under the remit of Defra. The Environment
Agency offers a response to three of the Committee's issues:
(c) Why the Government is proposing to limit
the scope of the Directive to EU-protected biodiversity, and which
Sites of Special Scientific Interest would be affected.
(d) What effect implementing the Directive
in the manner proposed by the Government is likely to have on
its meeting the 2010 targets under the Biodiversity Action Plan
and its PSA target to bring 95% of nationally important wildlife
sites into favourable condition; and whether the Directive may
take resources away from achieving these targets.
(f) The capacity of organisations... to take
action under the Directive.
(c) Why the Government is proposing to limit
the scope of the Environmental Liability Directive to EU-protected
biodiversity, and which Sites of Special Scientific Interest would
be affected
2. In our response to Defra's consultation,
we stated that the Environmental Liability Directive should be
implemented to include species and habitats for which any Site
of Special Scientific Interest is designated. We also said that
Ramsar sites (which cover wetlands of international importance)
should be included as this is in line with the Government's policy
to deal with these sites in the same manner as the European sites.
Our reasons are set out in our response to Defra's consultation,[10]
a copy of which is sent with this response to the Committee.[11]
3. Questions about which Sites of Special
Scientific Interest are affected are the domain of Natural England.
We understand that about a quarter of the total area covered by
Sites of Special Scientific Interest is not in a European site,
although they may contain species and habitats protected at the
European level. In addition, we believe that the European network
of sites does not protect about seven Ramsar sites.
(d) What effect implementing the Directive
in the manner proposed by the Government is likely to have on
its meeting the 2010 targets under the Biodiversity Action Plan
and its PSA target to bring 95% of nationally important wildlife
sites into favourable condition; and whether the Directive may
take resources away from achieving these targets.
4. We suggest that extending the scope of
the Directive to Sites of Special Scientific Interest would contribute
little to meeting the target of 95%. Indeed the small scale of
this particular issue was one of the reasons that we supported
the extension of the cover to these sites in our response to Defra's
consultation. But we suggest also that the extension to Sites
of Special Scientific Interest may help maintain these sites in
"favourable condition" in the long run, because the
penalties will encourage more care by operators who have the potential
to damage such a site. It will also ensure that remediation of
a damaged site is, as far as practicable, at the cost to the operator
or polluter, instead of defaulting to the taxpayer through the
PSA programme.
5. As part of the Regulatory Impact Assessment
we estimated the costs to the Environment Agency of the Directive
at £700,000 per year.[12]
Without extra resources we might spend less, for example, in confirming
that permit conditions are sufficiently protective, or on monitoring
the condition of sites and the pressures on them. But we would
strive to allocate our resources in a way that reflected risks
across the range of our responsibilities.
(f) The capacity of organisations such as
the Environment Agency... to take action under the Directive
6. Should we become a competent authority
in accordance with our response to Defra's consultation, the requirements
of the Directive represent an extension of our duties and skills.
There will be new duties and new extra work, particularly to assess
the damage and to select remedial options.
7. We shall need to provide resources. As
noted above, we gauge the cost at around £700,000 per year.
This is for up to 15 cases a year. This could change, depending
on how many cases are actually caught, and once it is clear how
the Directive will work.
8. This estimate is based on us being the
competent authority only for activities and damage that we currently
regulate and for water damage. It excludes the option to make
us the competent authority for damage to land and the competent
authority for more aspects of damage to biodiversity. These would
have big implications for our resources.
9. In our response to Defra's consultation
we expressed reservations about the Government's proposals for
land,[13]
in particular on the "strong case for designating the Environment
Agency as the competent authority for land damage".
10. We believe that the Environment Agency
should be the competent authority for damage to biodiversity in
water, and for damage to biodiversity caused by the activities
that we currently regulate.
10 Annex 1 of our responses: Section 7. Back
11
Not printed. Back
12
Paragraphs 2.20-2.23 of our response to Defra discusses this. Back
13
Paragraphs 2.14-2.19 of our response to Defra's consultation. Back
| 
