Memorandum by the National Farmers Union
(EA 68)
INTRODUCTION
The National Farmers' Union (NFU) represents
the interests of some 70,000 businesses which are engaged in a
diverse range of agricultural and related activities throughout
England and Wales. As a primary industry, farming depends on the
use and management of natural resources. As a result, the NFU
and its members have close contacts with the Environment Agency
on many of its principal functions and at all levels of operations
from Headquarter Directors and Board Members through to local
officers working on the ground.
Before we provide the Committee with our views
on the Environment Agency, we thought it would be helpful to provide
members with a brief summary of the main areas of interaction
between the Agency and agriculture.
1. Water Resources
Irrigation is of increasing importance to agriculture
as our customers' requirements for consistency and quality continue
to rise. Particularly in the case of potatoes and other vegetables,
achieving adequate crop quality is increasingly dependent on irrigation.
At the same time, water resources are under increasing pressure
from rising household consumption and also due to greater climatic
variability. There is a need for innovation in the management
of resources to reconcile conflicting pressures, and more research
and development to improve efficiency.
2. Land Drainage and Flood Protection
A major proportion of productive agricultural
land depends on drainage pipes laid at frequent intervals under
fields to retain its productive capacity. The effective function
of these land drains depends on the maintenance of a network of
ditches, streams and rivers to allow surplus rainfall to be carried
safely to the sea, or abstracted for storage in reservoirs. The
Agency has direct responsibility for the maintenance of main water
courses, and for the supervision of authorities which maintain
smaller water courses.
Flood protection is also of critical importance
to agriculture. Some 10 to 15 per cent of agricultural land, including
50 per cent of our highest quality Grade 1 Land is low-lying and
at risk of flooding from rivers or the sea. The effective discharge
of the Agency's flood defence function is therefore of vital importance.
3. Water Quality
Agriculture uses around 200 million tons each
year of manure and other materials which cause pollution if they
reach surface water or groundwater. The Agency regulates agriculture
through general controls such as discharge consents and controls
specific to agriculture such as the Silage and Slurry Regulations
and the NVZ Regulations, as well as dealing with individual pollution
incidents arising from farms. Pollution from diffuse agricultural
sources is an increasingly important issue and a particularly
challenging one requiring a co-operative partnership approach.
4. Integrated Pollution Control
New legislation is currently being introduced
under the "Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control Directive"
which will bring some sectors of agriculture within the former
industrial emission control system known as IPC. This regulates
all emissions to the environment from a particular plant under
a single permitting system. This brings agriculture into contact
with a sector of the Agency, formally known as Her Majesty's Inspectorate
of Pollution, which has had no prior dealings with farming matters.
5. Waste Management Licensing
The application of non-agricultural waste to
farmland raises issues relevant to the Agency's waste management
licensing regime. The areas of contact between agriculture and
the Agency under this heading will increase dramatically when
agricultural wastes are brought within the scope of this regime.
6. Wildlife Species and Habitat Management
The Agency is becoming increasingly involved
in wildlife management, an area where farmers have long played
an important role with other agencies such as English Nature,
The Countryside Council for Wales and County Wildlife Trusts.
The Agency's Water Level Management Plans, and to a lesser extent
Local Environment Action Plans and Catchment Management Plans
all have potential implications for farmers.
The NFU comes into contact with the Agency across
the broad spectrum of its main functions of advising government,
formulating policy, implementing legislation and application of
legislation to individual businesses. In a limited number of areas,
we are also involved with the Agency's as partners in voluntary
initiatives.
THE ENVIRONMENT
AGENCY—AN
OVERALL ASSESSMENT
The NFU has dealt with the Agency's various
predecessor bodies, including The National Rivers Authority, Waste
Regulation Authorities and Water Authorities, and has also witnessed
the recent evolution of the Agency itself. It is a young Agency
charged with a broader environmental role than its predecessors
and is responsible for implementing a suite of regulations many
of whose objectives are controversial and whose rubric is often
imprecise. The arena in which the Agency operates also poses serious
challenges. On the one hand the general public's increasing expectations
of higher standards of environmental protection together with
the European Commission's demands for total conformity with E.U.
Legislation pushes the Agency in the direction of increased regulation
and enforcement. On the other hand, it faces increasing pressure
and protest from business about the detrimental effects of regulations
and red tape on competitiveness and general commercial viability.
In such circumstances the Agency often finds
itself in situations where its duty to ensure conformity with
the letter of the law is at variance with the considered opinion
of many interests who see some of its imposition as unnecessary
and/or over-bureaucratic. The Agency itself often shares these
views as evidenced recently in the case of the application of
the Ground Water Regulations to agriculture. Here the Agency is
required to implement dated European legislation, which it recognises
as being excessive, inappropriate and which will seriously undermine
relationships with key sectors with whom it is seeking to develop
effective partnerships. In such circumstances, we have considerable
sympathy with the Agency.
THE ENVIRONMENT
AGENCY—AN
EVALUATION
For the purpose of this submission we have devised
a range of criteria against which we have attempted to evaluate
the Agency's performance. They are:
— Openness and Transparency
— Willingness and Ability to Work with
Partners
— Understanding the Implications of
its Policies for Business
— Willingness to Negotiate
SCIENTIFIC COMPETENCE
Our view of the Agency's Scientific Competence
is that at national level, it is at least adequate, often good
and sometimes excellent. At regional and local level the position
is inevitably more varied, but we would offer no general criticism.
OPENNESS AND
TRANSPARENCY
In many areas of its work the Agency has made
great improvements and we commend the efforts that have been made.
However, we still experience major difficulties. The two most
recent experiences we have of the Ground Water Regulations and
Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control have shown it to be
difficult or impossible to hold meaningful discussions with the
Agency until the last few months before regulations are implemented.
It is then often not possible for difficulties that emerge to
be dealt with thoroughly or properly, leading to chaotic circumstances,
confusion and unnecessary anxiety amongst farmers. The problems
appear to lie with the very protracted mechanisms for considering
policy issues within the Agency which can lead to a poor level
of service.
The position appears to be even worse in financial
matters, where the Agency's response to requests for information
suggests that it finds it difficult to explain how cost recovery
charges have been calculated. This leaves charge payers with little
idea whether or not the charges correctly reflect the cost recovery
principle or whether the Agency is efficient in its financial
management.
CONSISTENCY
As we indicated earlier, the Agency inherited
a range of functions from the 10 former Water Authorities (which
themselves had developed a range of modus-operandi) together with
the more recent additions of Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution
and the Waste Regulation Authorities. The challenge of developing
a more integrated and consistent approach to policy making and
implementation has therefore been considerable. We are pleased
to acknowledge substantial progress together with a willingness
in principle to address inconsistencies where they are identified.
However, our impression is of an organisation where cultural differences
between the regions persist and where there is a considerable
way to go to develop a consistent level of service and even application
of regulations across England and Wales.
WORKING WITH
PARTNERS
The Agency has made very significant improvements
in this area over recent years (other than in land drainage and
flood defence where it seems always to have been an established
approach). This is true at all levels, and especially at grass
roots where farmers' initial view of NRA officials as potential
or actual persecutors has been substantially transformed into
a productive relationship with "firm but fair" Agency
representatives. Clearly, experiences are diverse and exceptions
are inevitable, but the trend has been a consistent one over the
period of the Agency's formation and development.
More recently, we have also experienced Agency
approaches to problems where it identifies issues to be addressed
on an entirely co-operative partnership basis, involving both
statutory and non-statutory bodies, which we believe to be the
only realistic way of addressing the relevant problems. This tends
to produce a very constructive and willing response from farmers,
and is an approach we strongly endorse.
UNDERSTANDING BUSINESS
IMPLICATIONS
On some issues the Agency seems to demonstrate
little understanding of farm businesses or business needs, beyond
comprehending that charges are unwelcome and higher charges more
so. The business expertise of many Agency staff appears to be
limited. As a result, their understanding of the business and
commercial implications of policies is not as good as farmers
and growers would like.
WILLINGNESS TO
NEGOTIATE
On this criterion, our experience of the Agency
is somewhat mixed. At a practical level, on issues relating to
the implementation of policies our experience of the Agency's
staff has generally been very positive and constructive.
At national policy level however, our experience
has often been less positive. Whilst publicly proclaiming a willingness
to listen, the Agency's actions sometimes betray an inability
or unwillingness to hear. Although we would not expect that our
views should always be accepted without question, the spirit of
working in partnership requires explanations as to why arguments
are being rejected. Such explanations are often not provided by
the Agency.
INNOVATION
Innovation is apparent to us within the Agency
on a small but increasing scale. In some cases, it has effectively
been imposed due to pressure arising outside the Agency as a result
of problems such as flooding or water shortage. In others, original
thinking within the Agency has clearly generated it. An example
of the latter is the partnership initiatives promoted to address
some diffuse pollution issues relating to farmland.
VALUE FOR
MONEY
We encounter many hardworking, enthusiastic
and commited Agency staff with whom we are able to do business
effectively. We also find that the Agency is almost always willing
to provide speakers on environmental topics for farmer meetings,
and we ourselves will often call meetings as a venue for Agency
staff to brief farmers on issues such as new regulations. However,
as an organisation we find the Agency not always helpful or well
organised. Individual queries often have to pass along a chain
of individuals, which does not create an impression of efficiency.
As mentioned above, we also have great difficulty in obtaining
financial information. These experiences have forced us to conclude
that whilst much has been achieved, much still remains to be done
to develop a more efficient organisation. We are particularly
concerned by the Agency's inability or unwillingness to justify
its charges. Our two most recent experiences relate to the Groundwater
Regulations and the integrated Pollution Prevention and Control
Regulations, for which the Agency has proposed swingeing charges
on industry amounting to many millions of pounds. These affect
sheep farmers disposal of used sheep-dip, and pig and poultry
farmers above certain thresholds. However, it has proved difficult
to obtain information to justify the charges, and this often leads
us to conclude that such charges are in fact unjustifiable.
October 1999
| 
