1.0  SUMMARY

  1.1  The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds welcomes this opportunity to present evidence on the Environment Agency. Generally we support the work and environmental policy of the Environment Agency, but we question whether the Agency's current delivery of environmental improvements is cost effective.

  1.2  The RSPB is the largest wildlife conservation organisation in Europe with over 1 million members. We manage one of the largest conservation estates in the UK—147 nature reserves, covering more than 100,000 hectares, including habitats relevant to this inquiry such as wet grassland, reedbeds and estuaries. The RSPB takes an active interest in a wide range of environmental and land-use issues and employs specialist staff to advise on such matters.

  1.3  We have considerable experience of working with the Environment Agency at a national, regional and area level. We liaise closely with the Agency over a number of issues, especially those related to flood defence, water resources and conservation. We have also worked with the Agency on developing and implementing joint conservation projects. Members of staff and RSPB member groups sit on 17 Environment Agency executive and advisory Committees in 6 out of 7 of it's regions.

  1.4  We undertake reviews of different aspects of the Environment Agency's work. For example we have recently completed a review of Local Environment Agency Plans (LEAPs). We have presented oral and written evidence previously to select committees, this includes evidence to the Agriculture Committee on Flood and Coastal Defence in 1998.

  1.5  Our evidence is not a comprehensive review of the work of the Environment Agency, instead it focuses on our major areas of concern about the current operation of the Agency. These are:

—  cost effective delivery of environmental improvements;

—  influence and role of advisory committees;

—  weak links between Environment Agency plans and local authorities;

—  delivery of the UK biodiversity action plan.

  1.6  In our evidence we make 10 major recommendations to Government and the Environment Agency.

  Government needs to:

1.  simplify MAFF and DETR funding of river and coastal management through the introduction of a one-stop shop for grant aid to the Environment Agency.

2.  broaden the remit and role of Flood Defence committees to cover all river and coastal management issues by amendment to section 14(1) of the Environment Act 1995.

3.  improve the ability of the Environment Agency to deliver specific commitments in the UK Biodiversity Action Plan, by increasing its grant from DETR by £1.7million identified in the costed plan.

  The Environment Agency needs to:

4.  improve its Committee structure by increasing the powers of the REPAC advisory committee over Flood Defence Committee decisions

5.  ensure good links between strategic plans, so that issues identified in plans such as Water Level Management Plans and Shoreline Management Plans, are resolved through the most appropriate plan

6.  amend their guidance on LEAPs to ensure that they provide strategic environmental assessments for management options identified in strategic plans for single functions

7.  improve its guidance to regions on improving dialogue with local authorities, especially improving the links between statutory development plans and the Agency's strategic plans

8.  use LEAPs to set clear targets and identify action for UK Biodiversity Action Plans for which it is lead partner and for habitats and species affected by its remit

9.  deliver its contribution to the UK Biodiversity Action Plan through the activities of its functions

10.  give greater priority and resources to Water Level Management Plans to ensure that Government's commitments under the UK Biodiversity Action Plan are met.

2.0  GENERAL COMMENT ON THE WORK OF THE ENVIRONMENT AGENCY

  2.1  We generally support the Environment Agency's approach to environmental management including its policies on integrated river basin management, protection of floodplains, and integrated water resource management.

  2.2  The Environment Agency are an effective environmental regulator where it has a clear statutory responsibility. For example the Agency were champions of environmental issues when developing water companies' environmental programmes in the AMP 3 process. It ensured early consultation with interested parties, and maintained a good working partnership with Government and other regulators. It has pushed water companies to deliver drought contingency plans and water resource strategies.

  2.3  The Agency has set up national centres to deal with specialised issues such as demand management. These make good use of regional expertise to develop national policy.

  2.4  The RSPB believes that the Agency has a well integrated vision for delivery of environmental improvements, but there are still difficulties with implementation. There remains considerable regional variation in how the Agency operates, and we hope this enquiry will seek to highlight the areas of good practice that should be extended to all Environment Agency regions.

3.0  COST EFFECTIVE DELIVERY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPROVEMENTS

  3.1  The Environment Agency inherited a functional structure from the National Rivers Authority. This means that the work of the Agency is organised into functions such as flood defence, water resources, water quality, fisheries, conservation, recreation and navigation. The funding of the Agency's work and its national policy remain directed by function. This inhibits the ability of the Agency to deliver an integrated approach to environmental protection and improvement.

  3.2  Government's guidance to the Environment Agency pursuant to section 4(2) of the Environment Act 1995 states that the Agency should:

(i)

adopt across all its functions, an integrated approach to environmental protection and enhancement which considers impacts of substances and activities on all environmental media and on natural resources.

(v)

organize its activities in ways which reflect good environmental and management practice and provide value for money for those who pay its charges and taxpayers.

  3.3  The Environment Agency has developed a system of internal planning to implement this guidance. A hierarchy of plans which include an over arching environmental strategy, action plans for each function, and area based Local Environment Agency Plans (LEAPs).

  3.4  In practice integration is still hampered by the current system of funding and administration. For example Local Environment Agency plans are managed at a local level by multi-disciplinary teams. They should provide an opportunity to find integrated solutions to environmental issues such as urban flooding, deteriorating river and floodplain habitats and diffuse pollution. These include source control measures on farmland, which control agricultural runoff, provide wetland habitat and buffer zones; or restoration of floodplain areas to act as washlands for flood waters and restore grazing marsh for wildlife.

  3.5  It is difficult for the Area teams to find funding for integrated environmental solutions, since the benefits are spread across several functions. Each function does not want to pay for another's benefits. Projects which take a multi-disciplinary approach to environmental issues are blocked by single function Flood Defence Committees and a functional approach to allocating funding. The River Witham in case study 1 provides an example of the problem. Under the current system of finance no water management schemes for Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) will achieve funding from MAFF flood defence grant aid.

  CASE STUDY 1—River Witham, Lincolnshire

  The River Witham project aims to combine storage of flood waters with wider environmental improvements to the river banks and valley. The project is part of the Environment Agency's flood defence strategy for the Lower Witham. The objectives are compatible with those in the LEAP and English Nature's Natural Areas profile for the Wolds and UK Biodiversity Action Plan. Any flood defence scheme requires a priority score of 23 to receive grant aid from MAFF. This scheme only achieves a score of 22. Under current policy flood defence funding can only be spent for flood defence purposes. This effectively excludes projects which meet wider environmental objectives, unless alternative sources of funding can be found. Recent Environment Agency consultation on flood defence options for the Lower Witham have confirmed that most local people would prefer the option of upstream storage. The Environment Agency are currently seeking alternative funding sources to facilitate the scheme.

  3.6  At the Agriculture Select Committee inquiry into Flood and Coastal Defence in 1998, the Institute of Civil Engineers recognised this on-going problem for the Environment Agency:

"I firmly believe that some of the most beneficial projects.. for the nation... are perhaps missed due to the perils of the multiple funding route, . . . schemes . . . just do not get off the ground" (para 49).[16]

  3.7  The RSPB believes that the Environment Agency cannot properly implement an integrated approach until the Government removes the historically separate funding streams for flood defence, water resources, water quality and conservation projects.

  The Agriculture Select Committee Inquiry prompted MAFF and DETR to review joint funding arrangements for flood and coastal defence. However, the review appears to be limited to reviewing funding of this single function, and will not help address funding of integrated environmental projects.

  3.8  The RSPB believe that funding can be simplified by providing a one-stop shop for Government grant aid to the Environment Agency. The Agency at a national level should become the broker for grant aid across all its functions. Local Environment Agency Plans should be used to prioritise river and coastal management issues within Environment Agency regions, and identify integrated solutions to those issues. Consolidation of DETR and MAFF grant aid would allow consideration of more innovative solutions.

  3.9  Under this scenario, MAFF and DETR would continue to determine the policy and the criteria for allocating grant aid. However, the criteria should actively support project proposals which demonstrate that they provide integrated solutions to environmental issues.

  3.10  In terms of overall Government grant aid this should be more cost effective than the current system, which limits grant aid to single functions. For example under the current system DETR funds a diffuse pollution control programme, whilst MAFF funds separate programs to control floods, and the Environment Agency use abstraction license revenue for a programme to mange low flows in rivers. Although these projects have different objectives, the solution of creating source control wetlands could assist them all.

Recommendation 1: Government needs to simplify Environment Agency funding of schemes with multiple environmental benefits through introduction of a one-stop shop for grant aid from MAFF and DETR.

4.0  INFLUENCE AND ROLE OF AGENCY COMMITTEES

  4.1  The work of the Environment Agency is steered by executive and advisory committees. Advisory committees include REPACs, RFERACs and AEGs. These committees act as advisory focus groups representing a range of interests. They advise on a wide range of the Environment Agency's activities. Therefore REPACs and AEGs are well placed to take an integrated view of the Environment Agency's operations at the regional and area level. However, members of RSPB staff represented on these committees invariably report that views represented at the meetings appear to have little influence over the work programmes and activities of the Agency.

  4.2  The executive powers of Regional and Local Flood Defence Committees means that they have greater influence over the operation of the flood defence and land drainage functions. These committees administer around 44 per cent of the Agency's expenditure, however they are responsible to a single Agency function, and do not take an overview of the Agency's environmental responsibilities. This means that schemes that meet multiple Environment Agency objectives put to the RFDC are not seen in the context of other projects to resolve similar issues. Meanwhile the REPACs and AEGs which can take an overview appear to have no influence over the decisions of RFDCs.

Recommendation 2: Improve ability of the Environment Agency to deliver an integrated environmental approach by changing the current committee structure:

(a)  broaden the remit of Flood Defence Committees, to cover all river and coastal management issues, by amendment to section 14(1) of the Environment Act 1995.

(b)  increase the powers of the REPAC advisory committee over Flood Defence committee decisions.

5.0  WEAK LINKS BETWEEN ENVIRONMENT AGENCY PLANS AND LOCAL AUTHORITIES

  5.1  The Environment Agency is starting to develop strategic plans for its functions in addition to LEAPs. These include Shoreline Management Plans for coastal defence, Abstraction Management Strategies for water abstraction, and Water Level Management Plans for water management affecting sites with conservation interest. The RSPB support the development of strategic planning for these functions, since it has been difficult to provide sufficient detail for each functional plan in the LEAPs, and some issues require a different scale of planning. However there is a real danger that each of these strategic plans is taken forward in isolation, preventing an integrated approach to managing the environment.

Example 1: Shoreline Management Plans

  Shoreline Management Plans have failed to take account of the impact of their defence policies on coastal habitats. The RSPB estimate[17] that policies in SMPs for the Norfolk and Suffolk coast would result in the loss of 550 ha grazing marsh and 220 ha of lagoons and associated reedbed. Closer links between LEAPs and Shoreline Management Plans would allow the Environment Agency to identify areas suitable for replacement grazing marsh and reedbeds in river valleys. It could use this replacement habitat to help with other functional objectives such as flood storage.

Example 2: Water Level Management Plans

  Water Level Management Plans identify site specific actions such as changing the water management or maintenance regime. However they cannot deal with activities outwith the land drainage function which are damaging designated conservation sites, such as poor water quality or low flows. The Plans rely on these issues being taken up by the relevant Environment agency function. LEAPs should be used to pick up these issues and identify action to rectify the problem.

Recommendation 3: The Environment Agency needs to ensure good links between strategic plans, so that issues identified in plans such as Water Level Management Plans and Shoreline Management Plans, are resolved through the most appropriate plan.

  5.2  LEAPs take an overview of all the activities of the Agency in all or part of a river basin. Therefore they should provide a means of assessing the potential environmental impact of options identified in plans for a single function. Thus they can provide strategic environmental assessment for the activities of all the functions, and should be seen as the over-arching plan for the river basin.

Recommendation 4: Environment Agency needs to amend their guidance on LEAPs to ensure that they provide strategic environmental assessments for management options identified in the single function based strategic plans.

  5.3  Many environmental issues identified in LEAPs and other Agency plans require co-operation with other statutory agencies to resolve. This has been recognised through Memorandums of Understanding with local authorities and other statutory agencies. However there is poor linkage between Agency plans, and those of Local Authorities. This is often due to the Environment Agency plans not holding any statutory status. The Agriculture Committee Inquiry into Flood and Coastal defence found that this could result in new development approved by Local Authorities behind coastal defences, where the favoured option in the Shoreline Management Plan might be to move defences back. Another example is development plans identifying future development in areas of water stress, where there are limitations on development due to water resource or sewage treatment capacity constraints. Therefore it is crucial that the Environment Agency improve the dialogue and advice they give to local authorities, and that links are made between their respective strategic plans.

Recommendation 5: Environment Agency needs to improve its guidance to regions on improving dialogue with local authorities, especially improving the links between statutory development plans and the Agency's strategic plans.

6.0  ENHANCING BIODIVERSITY

  6.1  Under the UK Biodiversity Action Plan (UK BAP), the Agency has a lead role in plans to help save three wetland habitats and 19 wetland plant and animal species. The Agency also has commitments to help deliver other UK BAP, for habitats such as reedbed and grazing marsh, and for 37 species including wetland birds. The Agency also has a corporate commitment to include biodiversity targets for biodiversity in all Local Environment Agency Plans (LEAPs) by the end of 1999.

  6.2  In England and Wales, the biodiversity of wetlands such as reedbeds and grazing marshes face many threats, including pollution, drainage for agriculture and extracting water for human use. An indicator of the scale of loss of our wetlands is the rapid decline in the last 20 years of wetland birds. Breeding waders such as redshank and snipe are now unusual in today's countryside. Other wetland species have disappeared along with the birds. The water vole, once a common sight, has disappeared from 90 per cent of its former haunts, most of that loss being in recent decades. We are in danger of losing this rich biodiversity along with wetlands of immense value for defence against floods, managing water resources and public enjoyment.

  6.3  The Agency is already doing some considerable work for biodiversity. The RSPB has recently completed a review of the Agency's biodiversity work. We found that the Agency is involved in biodiversity work around the country especially through partnership projects with other organisations such as the RSPB, and local authorities, and local people. The Thames region alone implemented nearly 40 conservation projects in 1998-99, including two wetland creation projects with the RSPB. Some regions, for example Midlands Region, have introduced regional biodiversity strategies, which translate UK BAP targets into the regional contexts. However in most regions it is not clear what work is planned, how it will contribute towards UK BAP targets, and who is responsible for funding the work.

Using LEAPs to enhance biodiversity

  6.4  LEAPs are used to plan the work programmes of the Environment Agency. They provide the mechanism to target and identify biodiversity related work across its functions. They should ensure that adequate resources are assigned for implementation. Recent RSPB research[18] scored a sample of 24 LEAPs against a range of biodiversity criteria. Only one out of the 24 set timed and costed targets for biodiversity actions. Overall, the RSPB has found only two out of 100 LEAPs with such targets. Without these targets there is a danger that actions will not be implemented and the Agency will not meet its commitments to biodiversity. The RSPB is concerned that if action towards the UK BAP is not implemented swiftly, then rapidly declining wetland wildlife such as wading birds will only remain in special nature reserves.

Recommendation 6: The Environment Agency should use LEAPs to set clear targets and identify action for UK Biodiversity Action Plans for which it is lead partner and for habitats and specifs affected by its remit.

Funding for biodiversity work

  6.5  Once actions and targets are set for restoring wetland biodiversity then funds are required for implementation. The Agency can carry out work for biodiversity as part of its general environmental duties. The Agency should improve its guidance to these functions to ensure that added value for biodiversity is found through its other activities. However only 1 per cent of the Agency's annual budget is devoted to conservation work. To assist funding of specific actions to help deliver the UK BAP, the Agency has requested a £1.7million increase in its grant from DETR. Unfortunately the Government has not granted those funds.

Recommendation 7: The Environment Agency should ensure that it delivers its contribution to the UK Biodiversity Action Plan through the activities of its functions. Recommendation 8: Government should increase the Environment Agency's grant from DETR by £1.7million to allow it to implement specific commitments in the UK biodiversity action plan.

Implementation of Water Level Management Plans

  6.6  The Environment Agency are required under MAFF guidance to produce Water Level Management Plans for sites of conservation interest adjacent to main rivers. These plans are vital for restoring water conditions suitable for declining wildlife such as wading birds. RSPB research has revealed a serious decline in breeding wading bird populations across England and Wales. For example even in the Somerset Levels and Moors, the most extensive remnant of grazing marsh in England and Wales, snipe have declined by 80 per cent in the last 20 years. Urgent action is now required to stop extinction of snipe outside nature reserves.

  6.7  The Environment Agency have indicated through WLMP steering groups that the plans are low priority for implementation. This means that even completed plans which could restore water conditions suitable for breeding waders will not be taken forward. It will also mean that the Government will find it very difficult to meet its commitments to rehabilitate 10,000 ha of grazing marsh by the year 2000 under the UK Biodiversity Action Plan. Water Level Management Plans combined with agri-environment schemes are the main mechanisms to achieve this target.

Recommendation 9: The Environment Agency needs to give greater priority and resources to Water Level Management Plans to ensure that Government's commitments under the UK Biodiversity Action Plan are met.

October 1999

17   Sharpe J. and Huggett D. 1998 Coast in crisis: shoreline planning and biodiversity in East Anglia RSPB Conservation Review No. 12 Back

18   Wood H and Oates R, 1999, LEAP forward for wildlife: promoting biodiversity through Local Environment Agency Plans, RSPB, Sandy. Back