Stakeholders responding to the government’s triennial review of the Environment Agency (EA) and Natural England (NE), have voiced concern that should proposals to merge the Environment Agency and Natural England go ahead, some functions would be ‘swamped’ and lead to ineffective ‘conflict resolution’.

Further, there were ‘strong concerns’ that a single body would risk losing a ‘single, independent voice for nature’ as well as concerns over ‘costs, any potential level of disruption and risks to delivery from any changes’.

Background to the Review

The triennial review – part of government’s rolling programme that examines non-departmental delivery bodies every three years – was launched in December to assess the functions the bodies carry out and how they do it to ‘ensure that… [there are] sufficiently strong and resilient delivery bodies to meet our environmental ambitions’.

In the foreword to the discussion paper, Environment Minister Owen Paterson wrote that the review ‘must ensure that our public bodies offer the best value for money for the taxpayer, support economically and environmentally sustainable growth and deliver the right outcomes for businesses, customers and the public’.

Proposals listed in the paper included keeping both agencies separate and introducing budget cuts to improve service, or merging the two agencies together to form a single body responsible for environmental affairs.

According to the ‘Summary of stakeholder views’ document released by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) today (15 April), between 12 December and 4 February, 222 individual members of the public and 135 organisations submitted responses to the discussion paper.

A further 95 ‘external stakeholders’ attended a meeting with Defra in January to discuss the review.

Though an exact breakdown of the responses has not been released, Defra has outlined a ‘broad overview’ of the information contained in the written responses and from the workshop to ‘give an insight into the main themes that have been raised and highlight some of the other messages that have been provided to Defra’.

However, the department notes that the analysis ‘reflects the variety of views received, and does not necessarily reflect government policy’.

Structural Reform responses

One of the most controversial proposals outlined in the review was a merger of the Environment Agency, responsible for ‘improving the environment, and promoting sustainable development’ (with a specific focus on flooding and environmental crime), and Natural England, a body responsible for ‘protecting and improving’ England’s natural environment.

The move could follow a similar merger in Wales, which saw the Environment Agency Wales, The Countryside Council for Wales and the Forestry Commission Wales merge to form a single body, now known as Natural Resources Wales (or Cyfoeth Naturiol Cymru in Welsh.)

Reponses against merger

According to the responses document, ‘a number of respondents strongly supported the retention of two bodies and maintaining a strong independent voice for nature’.

Key reasons for this included:

• allowing ‘open debate’ between bodies about competing issues;
• minimising further risks from additional change;
• ensuring ‘continuity of delivery’; and
• maintaining a ‘strong focus’ on the natural environment.

According to the Civil Society Organisation (CSO), ‘with ever increasing threats to the natural environment, and an agenda to engage people with nature that is growing in urgency, now is not the time to subsume this distinctive agenda within an amalgamated body’.

However, it also argued that ‘a new body, with a new remit that commits it to contribute to economic growth and food security alongside the current functions of protecting critical environmental capital, is most likely to… provide a sustainable model for the future’.

Responses for merger

Respondents favouring a single merged body were reported to have said that one body had the potential for a more ‘consistent’ approach to regulation and customers at a national level.

Other reasons for supporting a merger included:

• developing a single strategic joined up approach;
• minimising duplication;
• simplifying the advice and delivery landscape;
• improving decision making; and
• providing consistency in approach.

EA and NE must see ‘improvements’

The document goes on to add that whilst other respondents were ‘agnostic’ about structure (stating no overall preference), there was a general feeling that effective delivery of the ‘right functions’ rather than structure, should be the priority.

The summary document reads: ‘Some respondents stressed the need that both bodies needed to see “improvements” and “operational changes” to the way they operate individually and collaboratively such as streamlining the decision-making and advice processes and rebalancing resources (from national to local level).

‘Respondents’ views largely centred on whether the core purpose should primarily be environmental, or if economic and social outcomes should be included as primary objectives.’

Indeed, the document goes on to say that some respondents commented that ‘tensions had arisen as a result of competing priorities related to the strategic direction of bodies’, with others highlighting that tensions between environment and economy in particular had ‘not been adequately addressed in the past’.

Further, the Trade Association reported that it was sometimes given ‘overlapping, and sometimes conflicting, information and advice by the [Environment] Agency and Natural England, which has sometimes made business planning more difficult.’

Overall, respondents had clear messages on what they were looking for from the review to support effective delivery. These included:

• a clear statement of priorities;

• clarity on functions and purpose;

• consistent framework for decision making;

• timely, consistent, evidence-based advice;

• transparency in decision making and advice ;

• a collaborative approach between the agencies and other delivery partners; and

• access to local ‘place based’ advice and expertise

Lastly, there was a perception amongst some respondents that both the EA and NE had lost technical expertise and/or capability in recent years which had left them ‘exposed’ and needed to be ‘reversed’.

Read the ‘Summary of stakeholder views’ to the triennial review of the Environment Agency and Natural England.