Defra is currently consulting on whether to merge two of its agencies, Natural England and Environment Agency, or keep them separate. Redesigning quangos may not be everybody's cup of tea, but as I have written before (here), the outcome could have huge significance for nature conservation.
We are particularly keen to ensure that the outcome of the review produces at least one organisation whose primary focus is to protect the natural environment and is able to give advice in public, free from political interference. As I wrote before Christmas (here), we have been concerned about proposals to make Natural England take into account economic factors as well as impact on wildlife when advising on planning proposals and to reduce Natural England’s independence.
There are similar issues facing the statutory nature conservation body in Wales but for different reasons. In Wales, the Countryside Council for Wales (CCW) is being merged with the Environment Agency Wales (EAW) and the Forestry Commission Wales (FCW) to create a new body called Natural Resources Wales (NRW). The second phase of the legislation (the Second Order) to create this new body is currently being scrutinised by the Environment & Sustainability Committee of the Senedd (the National Assembly for Wales).
The RSPB’s most significant and serious concern, based on legal advice we commissioned, is that the wording and caveats on the proposed Nature Conservation duty for NRW result in a weaker duty than that currently applying to CCW, and so is not compliant with the Public Bodies Act 2011. The Public Bodies Act 2011 is the legislative measure that allows Welsh Ministers to create the new body and transfer the existing functions of CCW, EAW and FCW to it. While they are allowed to make some modifications, the Public Bodies Act does not allow them to make widespread legislative changes. In particular, Welsh Ministers are not allowed to remove “any necessary protection” (Section 16(2)(a)). Our view is that a weakened Nature Conservation duty constitutes the removal of “necessary protection” for the wildlife and natural environment of Wales.
The weak Nature Conservation duty is further compounded by the fact that the new statutory purpose for NRW (set out in the First Order to create the new body) is ambiguous. It implies that the new body must show benefits for people and the economy as well as environmental benefits when carrying out actions to conserve nature. This could seriously undermine the effectiveness of the NRW as often the economic and/or social benefits of conservation action are indirect or may not be immediately quanitified or realised. It also sets a dangerous precedent, as it implies that achieving environmental objectives and protecting the natural environment for its own sake are no longer sufficient.
This begs the question, how will the Welsh Government, and the UK Government for that matter, meet the EU and international target to halt and reverse the loss of biodiversity by 2020 (the Nagoya agreement), if the main bodies responsible for the natural environment, NRW and NE, are unable to put wildlife and the natural environment first?
Just before Christmas, the news in Wales was of a leaked European Commission document criticising both the Welsh and the UK Governments over the consenting of the Pembroke gas-power station in the international important wildlife site of the Milford Haven Sound. In this case, the views of CCW were ignored and the permissions granted for the power station in a marine Special Area of Conservation without proper consideration of the impacts or respect for a host of international environmental laws. I believe that if Welsh Government sets up NRW without giving it that clear nature conservation purpose and with robust nature conservation duties, it will be at risk of many more infractions in the years to come. The UK Government would do well to take note of this case, as it seems the root of the problem was the Department for Energy and Climate Change’s initial permission for the power station in Pembroke without fully considering the environmental impact.
The understandable political imperative to prioritise economic growth must not undermine the role or responsibilities of any environmental agency. This is why, in Wales, we are calling on the Welsh Government to make the necessary changes to the draft Order to ensure the Nature Conservation duty is at least as strong as the current CCW duty and that the statutory purpose is amended to set out a clear and robust natural environmental remit for NRW. And this is why in England we shall continue to make the case for a strong independent champion for the natural environment through the triennial review consultation.
These agencies must be free to do the job that we and wildlife need them to do: conserve and enhance biodiversity while also safeguarding the natural capital on which we depend.
I wouldn't claim FC to be the best conservation organisation in England - as Peter Crispin acknowledges it probably is the best at countryside recreation - but the description of its record as 'patchy' is entirely consistent with the conservation lobby's refusal throughout the forestry debate to recognise its achievements - and equally to emphasise its failings (especially on heathland). The patchiness includes probably the biggest, most complex habitat restoration programme ever in the New Forest and - see your latest Birds - the millionth visitor to the Lake District Osprey Project. Even the heathland issue (and despite the growing resistance of many of my forester colleagues I agree there should be more heathland) depends on which end of the telescope you are looking down: there is no debate that Fc has restored more heathland than anyone else, the only question is whether it is more than all the other conservation bodies put together - and we couldn't work that out because of their poor recording.
I wouldn't claim FC is best at conservation because I think RSPB is. However, I do think it comes higher in the rankings than a number of pure conservation organisations which isn't bad for a body covering so many conflicting roles.
Thank you all for your wise words. And Peter - maybe the new year will lead to an outbreak of consensus between us! We'll see...
For once (!) I agree with your post Martin; however I do not agree with Nightjar re NE ; he must be speaking to different people than me if he considers NE comparable to its predecessors NCC or English Nature. FC was extremely patchy in its conservation duties but very good at recreation. The comparison to make is the EPA in the USA where size and volume can lead to confidence but this largely depends on the leadership and political space that the EPA is allowed and for me the solution is perhaps for all such arms length quangoes whether or not an EPA to be administered by the relevant Select Ctte and not the Minister.
The risks from this sort of apparently neutral administrative action are huge. They are the main reason why I've always opposed the Forestry Commission being amalgamated with another body, and the same arguments apply to, for example, NE being amalgamated with the EA. The justification given is usually 'back office savings' which are always minimal compared to the policy implications (usually losses). The problem is that even in the absence of malice towards the particular interest (and at the moment there are waves of malice towards both forestry and conservation coming off this Government) the smaller is always at risk of disappearing. It's not just size: its the clash of cultures, as well.
We have the prime example in Natural England. It's done reasonably well for conservation, though it would be hard to claim better than Natural England. However, the 'people' agenda of the Countryside Agency has disappeared almost without trace. Unlike EN, the CA did not enter the partnership in good shape and its problems were exacerbated by a regulation-leaning culture relating back to Helen Phillip's earlier career - not a huge problem for EN, but crippling for the CA inheritance which was always oriented more towards inspiration and ideas than regulation.
Exactly the same would apply to an NE - EA amalgamation - EA is heavily slanted towards engineering led water management and on top of that there is a political immediacy to its work which is only going to get worse as our concrete pouring approach to flood control fails in the face of climate change. With the best will in the world, conservation (and forestry in Wales) look set to quietly merge into the background. What is hard for conservationists to realise is just how small the conservation voice is within Government - at least whilst we have NE and FC there are clear, distinct voices for wildlife and trees, however small. That simply won't be the case soaked up in a megalithic new body - as I fear we will see in Wales over the next few years.
Absolutely right Martin. Well done to the RSPB for addressing this vital subject, which the general media never even bother about. One has the feeling that if this Government was serious about halting and reversing biodiversity loss then issues like this, the independence of public bodies to freely advise on what is best for nature conservation, should not even arise and the RSPB should not have to spend its time and effort argueing on this subject. Keep up the good work RSPB although it must be so frustrating having to deal with the politicians behind all this and in some cases, possibly, vested interests.