Reshuffling the deckchairs (7): a verdict on the outcome of the triennial review of Natural England and Environment Agency

Last summer, the Government initiated a review of  the Environment Agency and Natural England. Yesterday, it published the results of its review.

We argued that any review should improve the agencies' abilities to meet the ambitions set out in the Natural Environment White Paper.  Has it achieved that?

It has been clear that some sections of the Government saw this as an opportunity to reduce costs, reduce the number of quangos and quieten any pesky bodies who might get in the way of commercial interests.  The question of whether to merge EA and NE dominated the discussions.
 
The review has taken a year to complete. This is not a great use of taxpayers' money and no way to motivate staff in organisations that are already feeling the squeeze from hefty cuts.  This level of uncertainty is not conducive to high performance, particularly if you feel obliged to continuously prove yourselves to your paymasters.

For all that, the review is now complete.  And the good news is that Natural  England and the Environment Agency rightfully remain as two separate agencies.   They have distinct, important jobs and can now be free to get on with them.  Both organisations have excellent staff and I am glad their independence was defended by their advocates in government.

But, if you delve into the detail, there are a few nasty surprises about how the Govenment wants the agencies to operate.

1. There is continued talk about  the agencies having a duty to support economic growth. The whole point of agencies is to provide specialist advice. In the case of Natural England, this should mean providing impartial scientific advice on ecological matters decision-makers. Ecologists should not be expected to factor economic considerations into their advice.  This not only undermines their scientific integrity and impartiality, there is a very real danger of ill-informed decisions, which fail to safeguard our legally protected wildlife and habitats.

2. The report highlights the need for ‘more stretching targets for reducing regulatory burdens’. Time and again, the value of the natural world to our economy is laid bare. Defra’s own research shows that biodiversity-related regulations in England have a benefit-cost ratio of almost 9:1. Meanwhile, the net direct costs are only a small fraction of total turnover of agriculture, forestry, and fisheries. Despite this, some in Government seem fixed on a race to the regulatory bottom that will severely undermine the sustainability of our economy.

3. The report talks about consolidating the planning functions of the Environment Agency and Natural England. In such a scenario, how do you maintain transparency? Part of the rationale for separation is to maintain transparency where there might be conflicting advice. For example, in a case of flood defence v habitat restoration, how do you ensure that ‘a single conversation’ for developers doesn’t mean one agency doing what two agencies are needed for? This sounds a little like a merger by the back door.

There are only so many ways in which you can protect wildlife: incentives to encourage people to do the right thing, penalties to get them to stop doing bad things, pricing natural assets and creating a market in which to trade them or... exhortation.  The Chancellor has confirmed that there is no money. If the Defra spending axe falls in the way we predict, by 2015-16 Natural England will be about half the size it was in 2009.  Markets for natural assets are either a long way off (eg for carbon rich soils or water resources) or inapporpiate (for species).  So, no markets, much less money, and fewer laws.  That leaves exhortation - good old-fashioned persuasion.  And, as Professor Sir Bob Watson once said, no environmental problem has ever been solved solely by voluntary means. 

Failing to invest properly in the natural world will either sell us short or, worse, come back to haunt us.  And it means we shall undoubtedly leave our natural environment in an impoverished state for our children to grow up in, which is counter to the ambition set out in the Natural Environment White Paper.

We are where we are. 60% of species declining (State of Nature Report), nature's life-giving services being eroded (Natural Capital Committee) and the slow abdication of the State's responsibility for any of it. 

In the short term, we may have to make do with the decisions that have been made: use existing money well, prevent bad things from happening and be creative about how to get new investment. 

We are sleepwalking into an environmental catastrophe and it is time to wake people from their slumber.  Not just politicians, but businesses, landowners and, yes, you and me.

We need a new deal for wildlife and we need it fast.